On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> said:
Speaking as an AD now, you should expect me to complain about the "SHOULD"
in Section 4.7.
I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both upper
and lower case.
A lot of the lower case "must" was saying that one thing is the same as
another using tortured syntax so I rewrote most of them to be shorter and
clearer.
The SHOULD in 4.7 is now a MUST, and I trimmed some excess words. Also
fixed a similar SHOULD in 5.3. You have to ignore crud in the DMARC
record, which I believe is what most if not all DMARC libraries do.
In 4.4.1 it said that d=com cannot be an organizational domain because
it's a PSD, which I fixed to say because it has no DMARC record. You
can't tell it's a PSD because it has no DMARC record and never will but as
previously discussed, that doesn't matter.
In 5.8 took out a MUST turn an IDN in an A-R header into an A-label, since
you don't have to do that.
You can see the text diffs here:
https://www.taugh.com/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-13-from-2.diff.html
There's a github pull request with the changes.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
