Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On March 30, 2024 11:27:42 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On only the charter point:
>
>On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM Jim Fenton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> ??? Not Found
>> >> -------------
>> >>
>> >> I expected to find some text at least recommending a rewriting strategy
>> for From addresses to be used by mailing lists and the like.
>> >
>> > That would be extremely out of scope, not to mention something likely to
>> get the IESG to kick it back to us.
>>
>> The WG charter lists as the phase 1 work item for this WG, “Draft
>> description of interoperability issues for indirect mail flows and
>> plausible methods for reducing them.” This was published as RFC 7950
>> (informational). On the contrary, I would expect IESG to kick it back for
>> not even informatively referencing that work here.
>>
>
>I concur with Jim that rewriting strategies are in scope for the WG
>according to its charter, especially if we have something to recommend
>going forward.  RFC 7950 is informational and while it does discuss the
>issues in significant detail, it also falls short of making a specific
>recommendation.
>
>What's probably debatable here is whether the WG wants to include such a
>recommendation as part of the Proposed Standard it's aiming to put
>forward.  And keep in mind that the IETF still gets its Last Call to review
>the proposed document before the IESG gets it; the absence (or, indeed, the
>presence) of such advice might be significant then.

I think that we concluded that we didn't.  I don't think there's anything new here to debate.  I don't know what the IETF consensus will be, but I believe the WG concluded that standardizing such a thing would be inappropriate.

People implement horrible hacks all the time to get things to work.  It doesn't follow that they are worth documenting as correct.

Scott K