On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 12:57 PM Richard Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *A DKIM feedback loop seems to be a separate work item, a la DMARC. > > In general, I'd encourage making the text distinguish different > > goals and tasks more carefully. * > > > >As noted in postings by others, there is some community practice > established > >here, so this is a specific task for which it well might be possible to > >document > >and agree on a particular scheme that scales. > > If you are suggesting that feedback loops should be incorporated into a > separate document then I don't think that is going to be very useful > since would of necessity spend most of its text referring elsewhere. > Just to offer a counter-point, in DMARC we observed that the policy portion of that protocol and the reporting portion can exist separately (or, rather, the policy portion has value even if the reporting portion is not implemented, and many operators completely skip the latter), so the decision was made there to separate them. I don't know yet whether we might think the same about this proposal. > As documents progress then of course clarity is important, but that > often increases their length considerably and reduces their readership > I think we should figure out on which side of that tradeoff, and how far, we prefer to land. I tend to lean toward accepting some length increase in exchange for a smoother ride from future reviewers (i.e., directorates, the IESG) who might not be "skilled in the art". -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
