On Thu 21/May/2020 23:11:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Agreed. I don't think this is controversial. > > Also, I don't see a problem with making the p= tag optional (with an inferred > value of None if not present). This is consistent with an existing SHOULD in > RFC 7489 and appears to be broadly supported in existing implementations. > > I'd propose we close this ticket with the following resolution: > > The requirement that the v=DMARC1 tag be first will be retained. > > The requirement that the p= tag be second and the requirement that the p= tag > is mandatory will be dropped. If the p= tag is not present, the implied > policy value is None.
Please, let's not forget to update the grammar, e.g. as proposed in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tRjV69kdM6XzkiIb3ceZ2T8OWK8 Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
