On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Tim Draegen <t...@eudaemon.net> wrote:
> The intention is to have something in place -- the MLM model -- that can > be used to quickly identify issues that are related to DMARC > interoperability with any given piece of MLM software. I read Alessandro's > model as a way to generically describe MLMs, which would make comparing and > contrasting of MLMs a lot easier. > > IOW, fleshing out a matrix of interoperability issues with respect to MLMs > is made easier (possible?) if we have a generic way to describe MLM > behavior. This is not meant to be a robust exercise in crafting the ideal > MLM. > > If something like this is NOT in place, my concern is that the WG will > only look at the big MLM packages. If the WG does not spend time > collecting input, the WG will not be able to make informed decisions > regarding solutions. > > What I believe you're saying is that you want to have a description of the current MLM model, generalized or in the aggregate, as a place from which to start talking about DMARC's impact. I'm totally fine with that and agree that it's probably useful to write it down. The way Alessandro made his proposal suggested to me that we were starting down the road of some kind of formal description of how the DMARC world wants MLMs to behave, as different from the current model. That was a red flag to me. Thanks for clarifying. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
