On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 8:51 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr= [email protected]> wrote:
> Issue is here - > https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/155 > For the sake of trying to spark discussion: I think this might be the most important point that needs discussion before we Last Call this document. The specific thing that concerns me is that we're seeking Standards Track status for something that has well documented interoperability problems, and -- conspicuously, in my view -- this version of the DMARC specification doesn't improve on any of that since RFC 7489, which was the tacit agreement between the IESG and the working group. This should be explained. I believe it is related to, but not exactly the same as, the MUST NOT vs. SHOULD NOT decision that was made not long ago regarding interoperability advice. It's clear where consensus ended up, but I think the document falls short of explaining to the reader why this WG is prepared to get behind something that has these aspects to it, and that's something that should be fixed before it advances. I think the reasoning is scattered in that discussion thread and elsewhere in the archive, but someone should probably take a shot at synthesizing it into a few sentences. So does anyone want to propose text to add that explains this? This could go in the document itself (my preference, as that's going to be the most obvious place to look for a rationale later), or if we prefer, it could be added to the shepherd writeup. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
