I changed the subject line to differentiate the discussion regarding an additional document from the consensus thread.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:15 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > [trimming redundant Ccs] > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:41 AM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to first thank Francesca for taking the time to review where the >> working group is as far as consensus. >> > > +1, that was a lot to sift through. > > The short version of the non-normative language should be in the document >> itself but I believe the issues resulting from deviating from the normative >> "SHOULD NOT" deserve a fuller discussion in a separate document. >> > > What's the likelihood that a separate document would be consulted if it > existed? > Some would consult it and many would not. This is no different than some will read the RFC and many will not. Notice that did not specify that the additional document should be an IETF document. I'm flexible in that respect. > > I think I'd prefer to see exposition on this topic in an appendix of the > -bis document. I'm not convinced the WG has the energy to produce another > Informational just about this, covering the stuff you listed. > I'm not against this but it would certainly hold up completion of the -bis document. > > I'm also wondering whether documents like RFCs 6377 and 7960 already > sufficiently cover the issues we're talking about here. I suppose we > haven't discussed the mitigations that are in play already (even though > people don't like them). > I envision a document discussing the considerations and issues surrounding the specific choice of implementing a p=reject policy. This was part of the email authentication training I and a few others used to give in the 2010-2012 timeframe through the Online Trust Alliance (now part of the Internet Society). Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
