As a participant here... > 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?
I can't see how: That's RFC 7489. This is not that: it's the Standards Track document that specifies what the IETF says to do. And, in fact, it explicitly specifies things that are *not* currently being done. If we wanted an updated version of "how things are being done", we would be putting an update to 7489 through the ISE as Informational. > 2. If so, how would such language be received by those reviewing the > document outside of this working group? I'm not sure what "such language" is referring to. If you mean normative language about avoiding interoperability problems, well, we all know that some senders and some recipients will do what they want to do and won't worry about that. But: 1. *Some*, at least, will pay attention and will do what's necessary to minimize negative side effects. 2. The IETF will have specified what it collectively thinks is necessary for appropriate interoperability, which is what we strive to do. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
