Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Mar 2023, at 5:20, Todd Herr wrote:

> In my estimation, the language you propose here establishes the 
> primacy of interoperability over the needs/wishes of the domain 
> owner. 

As is appropriate for such normative language. From RFC 2119:

6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
    on implementors where the method is not required for
    interoperability.

> My preference is for language that acknowledges the primacy of the 
> domain owner over interoperability.

Not only ought there not be primacy of the needs/wishes of the domain 
owner over interoperability, the IETF has repeatedly rejected such a 
principle. An implementer might decide to implement a security backdoor, 
but our protocol documents say that you MUST NOT do that. An implementer 
might decide to violate TCP retransmission timer requirements to get 
better performance, but our protocol documents say that you MUST NOT do 
that. We document interoperability; we do not give primacy to the wishes 
of of domain owners.

If you agree that interoperability is increased, then I'd suggest that 
you actually do agree that the proposed text is appropriate.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best