I would agree with John here on keeping the implementation section should
be kept.
tim
(with no hats)
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 3:43 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <
> cabugu1rhecafhshcrwrehpru2kjpctoeqwai1g_njbb5ajf...@mail.gmail.com> you
> write:
> > Since information about existing
In article
you write:
> Since information about existing implementations gets removed as a doc
>passes through the editor's hands, I'm not sure why it would matter to
>update a section that will be removed.
Only if we ask them to. I don't see anything in the draft asking them to take
that
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:15 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
>
>> Thanks to you and Murray for carrying out that writeup. For a nit:
>>
>> There is one implementation already . . .
>>
>> Actually two. Besides Scott's implementation, zdkimfilter 1.7 implemented
>> PSDDMARC since Tue 24 Sep
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 3:49 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sat 07/Mar/2020 05:49:42 +0100 Tim Wicinski via Datatracker wrote:
> > Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-07 as
> Experimental on behalf of the DMARC working group.
> >
> > Please verify the document's state
On 07/03/2020 11:48, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sat 07/Mar/2020 05:49:42 +0100 Tim Wicinski via Datatracker wrote:
>> Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-07 as
>> Experimental on behalf of the DMARC working group.
>>
>> Please verify the document's state at
>>
On Sat 07/Mar/2020 05:49:42 +0100 Tim Wicinski via Datatracker wrote:
> Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-07 as
> Experimental on behalf of the DMARC working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-07 as
Experimental on behalf of the DMARC working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/
___
dmarc mailing list
