Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk

[Douglas Foster <[e-mail]>]

We can limit the transition period by specifying a date, after which any
untagged record is interpreted with strict alignment.



On Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 11:10 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Once again, participating only:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>
>> 2) I believe that the document needs a vigorous explanation of why the
>> PSL needs to be replaced.   I made a stab at the effort in the text that I
>> sent Sunday night.   Murray's text here is more comprehensive.   But we
>> need something.  We are asking evaluators to undertake a change which
>> requires effort and any change creates multiple risks.
>>
>
> I don't know about "vigorous", but I think some tutorial would be useful
> given the wide variability of experience in the ultimate audience.  An
> appendix would suffice.
>
>
>> 3) The critical question is whether we can treat the PSL as replaced
>> without obtaining the markers first.   On this issue, John and I have a
>> different assessment of the risk.   I can accept a solution which lays out
>> the assumptions and risks to the evaluator, and lets them decide what to
>> do.  This is what sections 4.7. and 4.8 in my text from Sunday night
>> attempted to do.
>>
>
> My suggestion would be that if we are going to offer a choice, there
> should be some eventual path toward convergence rather than an open-ended
> period of people doing either.  Otherwise, the PSL will be a part of DMARC
> for far longer than we'd like.
>
> -MSK
>