On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 5:07:51 PM EST [email protected] wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message > Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, > and Conformance (DMARC) Authors : Todd M. Herr > John Levine > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-24.txt > Pages : 70 > Date : 2022-11-09
I know this is a ridiculous nit, but if we're going to make changes for the sake of consistency, can we please actually be consistent. ... In the opening part of Section 4.8. Organizational Domain Discovery there is some re-wording in the description of the possible start points for a Tree Walk to fin the Organizational Domain. In the first bullet it's apparently important to change "message" to "email message being evaluated". I'm unconvinced we need to to make it clear we aren't talking about non-email messages or messages that aren't being evaluated, but here we are. Then in the second and third bullets, "message" is changed just to "message being evaluated". I don't think any of the changes in this section improve the document, but if the consensus is it needs this kind of improvement, can we be consistent about it? My suggest is that the best thing to do is revert all the changes in this paragraph. Similarly, I don't think the changes in 4.7 DMARC Policy Discovery are particularly helpful. Is it really necessary to change "RFC5322.From domain" to "domain name found in the RFC5322.From header". I think that this section is now less clear and consistent. For added fun, the bullets at the beginning have gone from none ending in a period to two ending in a period and none of them are complete sentences. I'd revert all these changes too. The tree walk definition changes to make it a generic "appropriate starting point" and "target" are good, as are that 4.1 DMARC Basics changes. I can't tell you if the "n" and "x" changes in the Tree Walk sections are an improvement or not. I think they will get the same result, but I need to study it to be sure. I can't tell why it's supposed to be better. The bit about com in 4.4.1 is wrong (it was also wrong before). If you could get permission to publish the needed records and manage to legit send email from postmaster@com, it could have an aligned DKIM signature, since even PSDs align with themselves. There's a few improvements that I'm glad to see, but I think we're treading water at best in this revision. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
