On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:31 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 7:02:59 AM EDT Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > > It would be helpful to the reader if the draft were either clear about > > potential limitations to deployment or more descriptive about the domains > > for which the approach can work. Right now, PSD DMARC cannot be deployed > > ubiquitously. That reality should not be overlooked. > > I see your point, but I think it's probably out of scope. This is an IETF > document and such restrictions are outside the IETF's control. Also, keep > in > mind that once an RFC is published, it is immutable. If that guidance > changes, then there would be no way to correct the document without > spinning > up a whole new RFC process. > > Is there a public, stable reference that describes the restrictions? If > so, > it might make sense to reference it. If we can, I think that would be > much > better than 'hard coding' the current external policy in an RFC. > Including this information in the draft would be counter-productive. A large part of this effort is to document the desired handling so that the RFC can be used as documentation to support a change in ICANN policy. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
