Re: [dmarc-ietf] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 05/Nov/2018 05:04:04 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> 7.3.  Header Field Position
>>>> This section explains that headers fields are *not* guaranteed to be
>>>> in a specific order. The section then states that "there will be
>>>> *some* indication...">>>>
>>>> Since the order is not guaranteed, what do you expect an implementer
>>>> to take away from this?>>>>
>>> "in the general case" and "but most do not".
>>>
>>> So: Most of the time, you can rely on header field ordering to determine
>>> the sequence of handling.  You are at least certain about whether you can
>>> trust the tail end of that, because you know your own environment from the
>>> ingress point.
>>>
>>>
>> Fair enough; I think it is worth adding this sentence to make it clear.
>>
> Doesn't the last sentence of that paragraph already say exactly that?

I think Rifaat means, literally:

OLD
         Thus, in the general case, there will be some indication of
   which MTAs (if any) handled the message after the addition of the
   header field defined here.

NEW
         Thus, in the general case, there will be some indication of
   which MTAs (if any) handled the message after the addition of the
   header field defined here, because operators know their own
   environment from the ingress point.


That doesn't seem to be a bad change to me.

Best
Ale