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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

Did we?  The technical implications for interoperability are clear, so I don't see why we would have decided to ignore them?

If you want to change it now, I don't see how you avoid reopening the issue (you can't reopen the issue without reopening the issue).

Scott K

On February 29, 2024 7:53:10 PM UTC, 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
>>
>
>