Once again, participating only: On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster < [email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > > 2) I believe that the document needs a vigorous explanation of why the PSL > needs to be replaced. I made a stab at the effort in the text that I sent > Sunday night. Murray's text here is more comprehensive. But we need > something. We are asking evaluators to undertake a change which requires > effort and any change creates multiple risks. > I don't know about "vigorous", but I think some tutorial would be useful given the wide variability of experience in the ultimate audience. An appendix would suffice. > 3) The critical question is whether we can treat the PSL as replaced > without obtaining the markers first. On this issue, John and I have a > different assessment of the risk. I can accept a solution which lays out > the assumptions and risks to the evaluator, and lets them decide what to > do. This is what sections 4.7. and 4.8 in my text from Sunday night > attempted to do. > My suggestion would be that if we are going to offer a choice, there should be some eventual path toward convergence rather than an open-ended period of people doing either. Otherwise, the PSL will be a part of DMARC for far longer than we'd like. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
