I also lean towards Seth's perspective. Additional comments in-line.

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 1:32 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hatless:
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:30 PM Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2. In Section 3.5, I'm concerned with the normative MUST NOT. This would
>> mean .example couldn't receive failure reports the way example.com does.
>> For something like .bank or .com, this is a feature. But for a .google,
>> this is a bug. I really think this MUST NOT is, while well advised, delving
>> into policy and not interop.
>>
>
> I've read Scott's replies to this as well.  The question I have is whether
> we have consensus to include this change, but that's hard to gauge when
> there's been so few names offering comments.
>
> I'm partial to using MUST NOT only where it goes to interoperability, so
> I'm inclined to agree with Seth.  However, I've been nudged away from that
> position on this in the past, i.e., that it can be used to encourage best
> practices and there's ample precedent for such.  Still, given other replies
> on the topic, especially the presence of "unless you know what you're
> doing" in some of the dialog, I'm wondering why this isn't a SHOULD NOT
> with an explanation of why, and in what circumstances one would deviate
> from that advice.  There are aspects of the discussion in this thread that
> would be valuable to implementers (summarized, of course).
>

I agree with avoiding MUST NOT in this case for the reasons given (policy
vs interoperability). I think SHOULD NOT with explanation of why might be
acceptable.

>
> I'm also inclined to agree with Seth on his points of complexity, and on
> moving contrary to DMARC's tenets.
>
> Having said all of that, I'm not firmly resisting given that the plan is
> to send this up as Experimental, as its deployment and results could
> usefully inform our choices with respect to standards track DMARC.
>
>
>
Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to