On December 29, 2014 2:32:27 PM EST, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >On 12/29/2014 10:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >TO: >>> > >DMARC evaluation can only complete and yield a "pass" result when one >of the underlying authentication mechanisms passes for an aligned >identifier. If neither passes and one or both of them failed due to >>> >a >temporary error, the Receiver evaluating the message is also unable >>> >to >conclude that the DMARC mechanism had a permanent failure and thereby >can apply the advertised DMARC policy. >>> > >>> >This looks good to me. >> Shouldn't it be cannot apply the advertised DMARC policy? > >Actually, no, but I also was confused. It took me some serious effort >to decide that the current wording was correct. And a spec should not >require that sort of linguistic diligence, IMO. > >Looks like a small change can make your form correct... > >So I suggest: > > DMARC evaluation can only yield a "pass" result after one >of the underlying authentication mechanisms passes for an aligned >identifier. If neither passes and one or both of them fails due to a >temporary error, the Receiver evaluating the message is unable to >conclude that the DMARC mechanism had a permanent failure; they >therefore cannot (yet) apply the advertised DMARC policy. > >d/
I think that's better. I'd prefer to leave out the parenthetical yet as I think it raises ambiguity rather than reduces it. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
