I think it ought to be resolved by the same AD that made the consensus call.
Scott K On February 29, 2024 8:58:21 PM UTC, Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: >I agree that the rough consensus landed on "SHOULD NOT" even though there >were some who felt "MUST NOT" was "purer". I was one of those who >(reluctantly) supported "SHOULD NOT". Todd is simply trying to get >consistency within the document to match the outcome that there was rough >agreement on. That is the new issue he is opening and not rehashing the >previously closed issue. > >Hopefully the chairs will rule on this so we don't have a previous issue >reopened during last call. > >Michael Hammer > >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:53 PM Seth Blank <seth= >[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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer >> *e:* [email protected] >> *p:* >> >> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or >> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) >> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized >> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or >> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited >> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to >> this email and then delete it from your system. >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
