On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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. ...?
>


As Chair, what I'm hearing is that this is a real issue, and may
need clarification in a BCP, not the primary document.

That said, without having at least part of this conversation now (like the
specificity in actors Dave has mentioned above), I don't see how we'll end
up with a standards track document that is clear and has the appropriate
normative language.

Seth


-- 

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* [email protected]
*p:* 415.273.8818



This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to