IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 20 August 2021 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424033A153B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 01:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C54BKzqgPDlg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 01:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4DFF3A1535 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 01:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1629448931; bh=t3gmsc+ZlIPJDg+S1d5xnkefb/SXCsi6D6XgebVZqPQ=; l=659; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DiC9VjkHXBdDE+pibv0iBwl+wy1aDIclN/OS4JVEFb4f5UrOXagvSDJRYiPWius4z s7L5z2cmG077IiVjBpPL4GhW65Dv0Rs3SG6vfu0DW61W7To8iq0xyAWIQB8PHMaeOl utXFY+HKYAM6XYa7oGCJV9K33bsGykPK6VDAnQIdYyjBWT8Zv6ilHrUixhdJF
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([2.198.14.130]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.00000000611F6AE3.0000086A; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:42:11 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <162931752865.27585.10197515584988072678@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHej_8mcwKcjwxV09_6ENrOnh5t+seDv_kTZiO0mgyRS2BVgTA@mail.gmail.com> <3e4b2087-a866-6f66-3964-71a3c67eab8b@tana.it> <CAHej_8kVW8daPQhghouneRS37WhaCHo4Os6Ggd43FbOpo=ri6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZjou+Qtr1JHjCmV+jAk1FqicB+zG4KTiRHZOLRHLV5Ng@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8mzm_w9S282FxHg3saMtU1i_O_69VWz9veDHNrbkA2U3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <ae135d56-c5ed-7b5d-dbb6-5dfbd44da5ba@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:42:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8mzm_w9S282FxHg3saMtU1i_O_69VWz9veDHNrbkA2U3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/I7H_42xHjRXzrXqRqfDjJPIiEis>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 08:42:23 -0000

On Thu 19/Aug/2021 21:37:06 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:22 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
>> I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator
>> currently advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it thought
>> it was asking for.  One could argue that this constitutes "breakage".
>>
> It has been argued by some that an operator currently advertising "pct=33"
> (or anything other than 0 or 100) was never getting what it thought it was
> asking for in the first place, hence the discussion about removing the pct
> tag.


Argued by some is not the same as rough consensus.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email