Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

Scott expresses it perfectly. +1  There is no compelling reason being given
for the split. Absent a compelling reason, this should not be pursued.

Michael Hammer

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On May 23, 2019 8:35:47 PM UTC, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> >In response to Seth Blank's call for issues of 9 May 2019:
> >
> >DMARC contains what are really two distinct mechanisms, a reporting
> >mechanism and a policy mechanism. The policy mechanism is largely a
> >request to the verifier about what to do in the event that a message is
> >received that does not comply with policy.
> >
> >There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage
> >of
> >mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are
> >domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports.
> >I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different
> >documents
> >dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a
> >separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant"
> >that is referenced by both, that would be OK.
> >
> >There was a similar situation with MTA-STS which had both a policy and
> >a
> >reporting mechanism, and that was broken into two standards-track RFCs:
> >RFC 8460 (SMTP TLS Reporting) and RFC 8461 (SMTP MTA Strict Transport
> >Security). I consider this to be a relevant precedent.
>
> What do you see as the potential advantage of your proposal?
>
> There isn't really a DMARC without expressing a policy.  One may choose to
> have a policy of none, but it's still there.  In the immortal words of Rush:
>
> "If you choose not to decide
> You still have made a choice".
>
> I can see where it might make things a little easier if we were starting
> from scratch, but we aren't.
>
> Scott K
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>