Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6

[Seth Blank <[e-mail]>]

As Chair: Consensus was already called. Todd just wants the wording
consistent in the document. There's no need for another decision here.

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:36 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Right, I understand that view, but since the chairs have already stepped
> back on this issue, who should make that call?
>
> Scott K
>
> On February 29, 2024 9:26:42 PM UTC, Seth Blank <seth=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >It was already resolved, Todd's point is that the text in 7.6 was never
> >updated to match, which was a mistake he wants to fix transparently.
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:04 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I think it ought to be resolved by the same AD that made the consensus
> >> call.
> >>
> >> Scott K
> >>
> >> On February 29, 2024 8:58:21 PM UTC, Dotzero <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >I agree that the rough consensus landed on "SHOULD NOT" even though
> there
> >> >were some who felt "MUST NOT" was "purer". I was one of those who
> >> >(reluctantly) supported "SHOULD NOT". Todd is simply trying to get
> >> >consistency within the document to match the outcome that there was
> rough
> >> >agreement on. That is the new issue he is opening and not rehashing the
> >> >previously closed issue.
> >> >
> >> >Hopefully the chairs will rule on this so we don't have a previous
> issue
> >> >reopened during last call.
> >> >
> >> >Michael Hammer
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:53 PM Seth Blank <seth=
> >> >[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I thought we landed on SHOULD NOT, there was strong resistance to
> MUST
> >> NOT
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM Scott Kitterman <
> [e-mail]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Okay.  I think 8.6 is the one in error.  You see how this is going
> to
> >> go,
> >> >>> right?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Scott K
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On February 29, 2024 7:45:15 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=
> >> >>> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>> >It is not my intent here to relitigate any issues.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Rather, I believe that the text in 7.6 is wrong, likely due to an
> >> >>> oversight
> >> >>> >on my part when the new text in 8.6 was published, and I just want
> to
> >> >>> >confirm that 7.6 is indeed wrong.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:10 PM Scott Kitterman <
> [e-mail]
> >> >
> >> >>> >wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued
> to
> >> >>> death
> >> >>> >> in the WG?  I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will,
> no
> >> >>> doubt
> >> >>> >> get to have this conversation during the IETF last call, but for
> the
> >> >>> >> working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of
> relitigation
> >> of
> >> >>> >> issues we've been counseled to avoid.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Scott K
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=
> >> >>> >> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >Colleagues,
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect
> the
> >> >>> first
> >> >>> >> >set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe
> goes
> >> >>> beyond
> >> >>> >> >minor, so wanted to get a sanity check.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following
> >> sentence:
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for
> >> >>> >> >general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of
> p=reject.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6,
> >> >>> >> >Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic
> >> (e.g.,
> >> >>> "It
> >> >>> >> is
> >> >>> >> >therefore critical that domains that host users who might post
> >> >>> messages to
> >> >>> >> >mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject")
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for
> >> >>> >> >general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of
> >> p=reject",
> >> >>> yes?
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> >>> >> [e-mail]
> >> >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> dmarc mailing list
> >> >>> [e-mail]
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> *Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer
> >> >> *e:* [e-mail]
> >> >> *p:*
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> >> [e-mail]
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>


-- 

*Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer
*e:* [e-mail]
*p:*

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.