There is a difference between silencing dissenters and saying that the dissent has been discussed and the rough consensus disagrees with the dissenters. Everyone needs to understand when they've lost an argument -- not because people are against them, but simply because reasonable people disagree, and we need to make a rough-consensus decision -- and move on.
In this case, my reading of the discussion is that (1) there are good arguments and plenty of evidence that PCT isn't working consistently and interoperably, that PCT is mostly not necessary in a Proposed Standard (as opposed to Experimental or Informational) version of DMARC, and that the main use case that has been raised for retaining it is a binary, on/off situation. I believe the working group has *rough* consensus on that, recognizing that agreement on it is not unanimous. There is a *proposal* for handling the binary situation differently. I believe the working group as a whole has expressed interest in that proposed solution, though we do not yet have rough consensus on the details and text of that. Barry, as chair On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:19 AM Douglas Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > On the subject of PCT, we did not reach agreement, we reached silence. > Silence comes across as a move by the majority to silence dissenters. The > chairs are empowered to decide whether this is an appropriate tactic by the > majority, and whether a majority or supermajority is a sufficient > approximation of consensus. > > I believe that PCT is a weak solution to a real problem, and that eliminating > PCT makes the problem much worse. This situation will operate against the > interests of all legitimate participants. PCT needs to be improved, not > discarded. There is a lot to talk about here. > > Doug Foster > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu 19/Aug/2021 21:37:06 +0200 Todd Herr wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:22 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > >> >> I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator >> >> currently advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it thought >> >> it was asking for. One could argue that this constitutes "breakage". >> >> >> > It has been argued by some that an operator currently advertising "pct=33" >> > (or anything other than 0 or 100) was never getting what it thought it was >> > asking for in the first place, hence the discussion about removing the pct >> > tag. >> >> >> Argued by some is not the same as rough consensus. >> >> >> Best >> Ale >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
