Did we? The technical implications for interoperability are clear, so I don't see why we would have decided to ignore them?
If you want to change it now, I don't see how you avoid reopening the issue (you can't reopen the issue without reopening the issue). Scott K On February 29, 2024 7:53:10 PM UTC, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: >I thought we landed on SHOULD NOT, there was strong resistance to MUST NOT > >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Okay. I think 8.6 is the one in error. You see how this is going to go, >> right? >> >> Scott K >> >> On February 29, 2024 7:45:15 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr= >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >It is not my intent here to relitigate any issues. >> > >> >Rather, I believe that the text in 7.6 is wrong, likely due to an >> oversight >> >on my part when the new text in 8.6 was published, and I just want to >> >confirm that 7.6 is indeed wrong. >> > >> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:10 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued to >> death >> >> in the WG? I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will, no doubt >> >> get to have this conversation during the IETF last call, but for the >> >> working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of relitigation of >> >> issues we've been counseled to avoid. >> >> >> >> Scott K >> >> >> >> On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr= >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Colleagues, >> >> > >> >> >I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the >> first >> >> >set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes >> beyond >> >> >minor, so wanted to get a sanity check. >> >> > >> >> >Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following sentence: >> >> > >> >> >In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for >> >> >general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6, >> >> >Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic (e.g., >> "It >> >> is >> >> >therefore critical that domains that host users who might post >> messages to >> >> >mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject") >> >> > >> >> >Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for >> >> >general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject", >> yes? >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> dmarc mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >> >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
