Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

[Seth Blank <[e-mail]>]

Please follow the process stated by the chairs, open the tickets, and we’ll
tear through the items. It’s disruptive threads that take us off task and
make it feel like “five years” worth of tickets. Most in the tracker are
simple and close to NOOPs if we stay focused.

Seth, as Chair

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 09:16 Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 12/30/20 8:42 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> > At this point, this thread is deeply unproductive and preventing work
> > on open tickets.
> >
> > Mike, I hear that you believe better normative accounting for DMARC
> > results in auth-res is needed. If this is correct, please open a
> > ticket, and the working group will address it later as we've committed
> > to discussing all open tickets.
> >
> Later? How much later? Looking at the open tickets it looks you have
> about 5 more years of "later". And I would say the chairs teeing up
> tickets would be a far more efficient means of driving the process than
> shutting down discussions that will become tickets. That other thread on
> privacy should have been closed out weeks ago.
>
> I believe there are several separate issues:
>
> 1) There is a scaling issue for DMARC if it is required to be used
> beyond the boundary of an administrative domain, and especially if MUA's
> start running them; there is nothing that says that they can't or
> shouldn't.
>
> 2) Auth-res process-wise is an orphan with no means of discussing it in
> any working group even though it's standards track and has issues
> requiring coordination with this working group
>
> 3) The fundamental question that Ned brought up which is whether
> Auth-res is a protocol at all. If it's really just a debugging tool to
> be use by humans, it should definitely just be informational, and
> probably historic. Either Auth-res is useful and supported or not and
> should be killed
>
> 4) Should DMARC require a normative Authentication-Results Requirements
> section? This process-wise would solve the problem of auth-res in (2)
> and shift the specification of that normative text back to the document
> that is affected by it, letting Auth-res just be a transport vehicle so
> that it doesn't require yet another working group-less update. That is
> what we should have done from the start, but auth-res is an accident of
> history.
>
> Mike
>
> --

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* [e-mail]
*p:* 415.273.8818


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.