Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

First, let me be clear here: There will be no further discussion of
this "don't be nasty" issue on the list; if you have more to say to me
about it, please do it off list.

Nothing that Murray or I said is "endorsing the current document" (nor
is it not).  It's addressing your behaviour, your way of interaction.

"it is his intent to hide any information about private registries"
and "which he does not wish exposed" are both out of line, and we'll
not have any more of that.  Do you not see the difference between what
you said, which is attacking John, and what I suggested as a possible
alternative, which is making the same point without the attack?
(That's a rhetorical question.  Please just think about it; don't
answer it on list.)

Let's move back to the substantive discussion.
As a constructive suggestion in that regard: If you want something
specific in the document, why don't you post specific text for the
working group to consider, and say where in the document you'd like to
see it put?

Barry, as chair

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 8:31 AM Douglas Foster
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I see no personal attack.   John was clear, and has been clear, that he has no intention of documenting any limitations or risks associated with the tree walk, because in his judgement, they are not important.   My concern is about a document that creates a new vulnerability, then fails to document it.  The private registries DO create complexities for the tree walk, complexities that have been trivialized instead of being mitigated.
>
> But if you wish to endorse the current document.  Let's do so honestly:
>
> "The tree walk is vulnerable to false PASS if certain combinations of present and missing data occur.   Even though this has happened in the past, it is the firm opinion of some work group members that this will not ever occur in the future.   Therefore the details of a non-problem are of no interest to DMARC participants."
>
> My issue is with the document.
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:50 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >> So John has confirmed that it is his intent to hide any information about private registries, because the
>> >> private registries create complexity for his algorithm which he does not wish exposed.
>> >
>> > I submit that equating "this is not worth explaining as it's a corner case" to "we should hide this detail
>> > because I don't want anyone to know about it" is logically absurd as well as baldly antagonistic.
>>
>> Agreed, and thanks, Murray.
>>
>> Doug, I've called out others for similar things, and you get it here:
>> Please do not attribute bad intent to other participants, and please
>> do not put things in terms of accusations or in ways that seem only to
>> pour tar.
>>
>> A response such as, "John, I strongly disagree: I think it's really
>> important to talk about at least some uncommon cases in order to make
>> the situation clear.  Discussing private registries in one of those
>> important cases, as they create complexities for the algorithm that
>> need to be shown," gives your technical opinion without being
>> insulting or inflammatory.
>>
>> Barry