On Mon, 28 Dec 2020, Ned Freed wrote:
> I'm not ethusiastic about the split, but if that's what people want then so be
> it. I will say that my experience has been that doing so is usually more work
> and provides less benefit than you'd expect.
I recall agreeing to split out all of the reporting into a separate draft,
which makes some sense so the two parts can proceed separately, but not
further splitting aggregate and failure reports.
I was referring to the latter; I thought the reference to the drafts involved
made that clear. Sorry for the confusion.
The outcome of the split of MIME part one into four parts may offer some
limited insight here. IMO splitting message bodies from media types was a sound
logical split and ended up being a good thing. The split of conformance
criteria from media types, however, was a pretty serious lose - they now tend
to get ignored - so much so it's tempting to try and undo it.
But the split of media type registration from MIME/email was the real win, so
much so that it more than justified the entire activity.
The lesson, if there is one, is to go just far enough, but no further.
Splitting different reporting types smells a lot like "further" to me.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
