Barry is technically correct: Any coding system can be technically sufficient if it is explained. We could, for example, choose
qzx=(#|&|~) instead of psd=(y|n|u) Of the infinite set of choices, how do we choose one, or does it even matter? The answer should be driven by the needs of the reader -- what coding scheme will be most easily understood and used correctly by software developers, and will be most easily understood and used correctly by domain owners? My opinion, No. -1 This is symptomatic of the larger problem with our current draft. Our description of the DMARC evaluation process is very close to minimal technical sufficiency. By "minimal technical sufficiency", I mean that there is nothing present or omitted from the document which prevents creation of a correctly working implementation. Therefore we could "ship it", and perhaps we will. But our goal should be to produce a document which simplifies the effort by the reader. This includes a developer's need to turn specification into code, and a system administrator's need to turn code into better disposition decisions. To know that we have met the needs of developers, we would have to be willing to evaluate multiple outlines and consider a rewrite. To know that we have met the needs of the system administrator, we would have to be willing to rethink our scope. Doug On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 2:32 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that we've gone around the barn a few more times and nothing has > changed with the psd=u/n/y tag, can we please ask for a tentative IANA > registration? > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
