On 6/8/2020 9:54 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Conformance requirements to support contracting is not something the IETF typically does. I think deferring this to a follow-on BCP is appropriate.
While true, of course, there is a continuing confusion between the two sides of protocol exchanges, especially the indirect kind involving a DNS entry. Some specification help make the distinction rather clear, such as calling one client and the other server. DKIM distinguishes 'signing' from 'verifying'.
DMARC seem to provide clear labels for making the distinction. Worse, section 8 on implementations conflates send and recieve (and doesn't even comment on the DNS record.)
So public discussion might be aided by having and using some clear, consistent language, along the lines of:
1. DMARC Owner Record 2. DMARC Report Sender 3. DMARC Report Receiver 4. ...? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
