On December 31, 2014 11:43:06 PM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: >OK, seriously, I hope I don't have to crack this open again. Conflict >review is slated for the 1/8 telechat, and a flurry of last minute >edits >might not sit well with the IESG. We need to leave actual work, as >much as >at all possible, to the WG, and not to hacking on the ISE version. > >Diffs to -09 which will be in -10 within the next few days: >http://blackops.org/~msk/dmarc/diff.html > >-MSK > > >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman ><[email protected]> >wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Personally I prefer what you had for -09. I think it's clearer, but I'm ok with either. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
