On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > While I appreciate the IETF mantra of "rough consensus and running code", I think DMARC may perhaps be an outlier for the IETF, in that it's been in use for nigh on ten years without being formally codified by the IETF. Furthermore, as of a year ago, DMARC finds itself to be a required implementation for many Domain Owners in the email community, despite its interoperability issues. To that end, any text I might draft on this topic would lean toward "We wrote this to capture how things are being done" rather than "We wrote this to describe how to do things", but I don't know how such language might be received. So, two questions... 1. Does "We wrote this to capture how things are being done" capture the consensus of the working group? 2. If so, how would such language be received by those reviewing the document outside of this working group? -- Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem Email: [email protected] Phone: 703-220-4153 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] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
