On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 4:40 AM Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip] > > Note, that both RFC 7489 and version 30 of the DMARCbis did say that: > > 5.7.2. Determine Handling Policy > > To arrive at a policy for an individual message, Mail Receivers > MUST perform the following actions or their semantic equivalents. > > (section number changes between RFC and different dmarcbis versions) > and those actions included doing both DKIM signature verification > checks (step 3), and SPF checks (step 4). > > This was changed in version 31, and I did not remember seeing any > discussion about this, even when this is very big change. And as you > now point out this is incompatible change to the DMARC RFC7489 so we > should roll it back... > Version 30 was released on February 28, 2024, and was submitted for WGLC. The upshot of that was that there were many, many threads on-list discussing a variety of topics, and the archives show you participating in some of those threads. When I published Version 31 on May 20, 2024 ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QAqvczsj0_JAqu-pqw_2cFW871k/), I wrote: Colleagues, My efforts in producing this rev focused on incorporating many of the comments from WGLC. Some of those comments were in regards to lack of clarity in language, section ordering, and the like, and the comments weren't wrong. I've made a concerted effort to go through the entire document from front to back and ensure a consistency of usage of terminology, so that every time $THING was discussed, the same term was used for it. One prime example of this was my replacing all references to RFC5322.From domain with Author Domain, since Author Domain is a defined term in the document ("The domain name of the apparent author as extracted from the RFC5322.From Header field.") and its usage flows better when reading (in my opinion) than does "RFC5322.From domain". I also took great pains to try to ensure that the first usage of a defined term in a given section was then linked back to the term's definition, so there's now lots of, sticking with our example, "[Author Domain](#author-domain)" in the markdown version of the document. I may have missed a few places to do this, and this may have been massive overkill on my part, but I was inspired by Mr. Fenton's WGLC comments ( https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/142) The upshot here is that rev -31 is both significantly different from rev -30 and not that different at all, in my opinion. The text is certainly different, and the ordering of some sections has changed, but the contents are not all that different (save for this rev having N=8 for the Tree Walk, vice 5 in the previous version and one or two other bits). Have at it. Specific to your claim, I believe that version 31 made the Domain Owner Actions and the Mail Receiver Actions most similar in structure and language, and I submit that every thread subsequent to the release of version 31 has been a de facto opportunity to further discuss the contents of DMARCbis. -- Todd Herr Some Guy in VA LLC [email protected] 703-220-4153 Book Time With Me: https://calendar.app.google/tGDuDzbThBdTp3Wx8
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
