At a minimum, per Dave's comments here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XXE3r5FUozl6LVohv8rTkn5QG4E/ I still believe there's some clear consistent language that needs to be agreed upon to drive the appropriate specificity in the document.
I do hear the consensus that a) any depth beyond definitions most likely belongs in a BCP, and b) any text in this document must be purely informational. If we can't make headway on this ticket in the next 48 hours, we'll table it to progress other tickets and come back to it later. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:58 AM Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:52 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Personally, I have no interest in defining this stuff but in practice, >>> there are a lot of places where people are instructed to "implement >>> DMARC", and it would be nice to encourage them to do more than publish >>> a lame SPF record and p=reject. >> >> >> I guess I was under the misimpression that IETF is a technical standards >> body, not a marketing organization. Perhaps the working group could come up >> with a cute logo and charge people for using it to show their compliance. >> Is there another IETF standard that has levels of compliance as a marketing >> tool? If organizations or governments instruct people "to implement" DMARC, >> I would suggest that the onus is on them to provide better guidance as to >> what they require. >> > > Sarcasm aside, I agree. IMHO, the text in the standards track document(s) > shouldn't talk about compliance requirements or participation levels. > Standards documents should just talk about how independent implementations > interoperate, and any security/privacy implications of doing so. > > I think talking about the advantages of supporting different optional > parts is fine if you want to encourage it, but I think we should resist any > implication that you're below the bar if you're not doing <some set of > things>. > > This follows the spirit set out in RFC 2119 Section 6. > > -MSK, hatless > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *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
