Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, July 01, 2013 07:46:54 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/1/2013 7:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 01, 2013 04:12:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> Let me repeat:  better writing; no technical changes.
> > 
> > I disagree.  I've been saying repeatedly that I think that the policy
> > overrides are a layering violation that should be removed.  They are bad
> > design.
> 
> Yes you have.
> 
> And where is the community constituency that supports that view?

How many experts on the policy mechanism DMARC wants to mess with are involved 
in the discussion?  So far, DMARC is pretty much a self-licking ice cream 
cone.  To claim the lack of broad community support for a particular change is 
a reason not to seek broad community review seems like a bit of a catch 22.

> > I'll add to that that having watched senders try to interpret XML reports
> > they receive from different providers and understand the subtleties
> > between them that while the mechanics of the XML schema are there, the
> > semantics are not clear enough to provide for interoperable
> > implementations.  Even among implementers who have worked together in
> > dmarc.org to develop the schema, there are inconsistencies.
> 
> Not sure what you are suggesting, as technical work, for the reporting
> mechanism.  I also missed the demonstration of community interest in
> those changes, ideally on this list.

Since this is the first time I've mentioned this particular point, it's not 
surprising there isn't much feedback on it.  You don't ask for anything here 
that wouldn't require time travel.

> > I don't think there is anything in the two issues about that would force
> > existing implementers to make changes, but I think that they are not
> > purely
> > editorial either.
> 
> Sorry for my confusion, but I don't know how to classify the changes
> that you seem to be calling for.

I'm' sorry too.

Scott K