On 1/29/2022 7:53 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. Using 7489 or 9091 as fixed, controlling documents is problematic, as
I've noted. So, 'consistency' with them is frankly irrelevant.
The WG charter doesn't say that they are irrelevant. I don't think we should
be redefining terms for the sake of redefining terms. You've given no rationale
for there being a problem with the current definition, so I don't think it's up
to me to make the case for why things shouldn't change.
1. For this topic, they are irrelevant. There is nothing in the charter
that says terminology must be preserved. Interoperability is not
endangered by changes in terminology.
2. Your 'for the sake of' is uncalled for and dismissive. Please stop
doing that. Attempts to be dismissive are a popular debating technique
in the IETF, but they are counter-productive, as well as
unprofessional. (And no, this comment is not just meant for you. You're
just lucky, tonight.)
3. As for giving no rationale, 'tree walk' posting set the stage.
a) Today's posting specifically noted:
"the move towards supporting (at least) two very different methods
of finding it." \
b) Again: for DMARC, the semantics of the different mechanisms is
the same. Hence a single term.
There is quite a bit of benefit in having a single term to cover
different means of achieving the same goal.
So now I'll again ask: what are the semantic differences that are
relevant to DMARC, and what is the benefit of having DMARC use different
terms, given that DMARC does not care about which mechanism is used?
2. To the extent that the text I've proposed does not accurately reflect
the semantics of what DMARC needs, please explain what, specifically,
are the issues.
I'm not aware of any related to a need for this new text. I think that's up
to you.
Sorry no. It's not my job to guess at your objections. I'm pretty sure
it's your job to explain them.
3. The role of the function that uses the PSD and the role of the
function that does a tree walk are identical. Since you apparently feel
otherwise, please explain.
A PSD is potentially useful for DMARC policy determination if no policy exists
for the exact domain or the organizational domain. It is not useful for
evaluating relaxed alignment. Only the organizational domain can be used for
that. So I do not think you are correct.
The RFC 9091 does not contain the word 'relaxed', so I'm curious about
the basis for your assertion of the limitation.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
