Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?

Before we move to coding the similarities, differences, and risks into the
document, it would be useful just to generate a complete list within this
WG.

It would certainly be a breach of trust to omit information from the
document, if done for the purpose of hiding tree walk limitations.

Doug

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 3:13 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Sun 19/Jun/2022 18:08:57 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
> >>> That seems like a pessimal way to make things interoperate: use one of
> >>> an unknown set of algorithms ...
> >>
> >> Given that we're already working in an environment where it's unlikely
> that
> >> everyone's working from a common version of the PSL, I don't think this
> is
> >> such a scary idea.
> >
> > But one of the points of the tree walk is that for the first time it
> gives us a
> > well-defined algorithm that everyone can use to get the same answer.
>
>
> Getting the right answer is essential, of course.  However, DMARC doesn't
> provide for interoperation among different evaluators.  That everyone gets
> exactly the same answer is not so crucial.
>
>
> > I realize that the PSL works OK, mostly, we think, give or take its
> daily
> > updates and no agreement about whether you use the whole thing or just
> the
> > nominally more official first part.
>
>
> The tree walk is going to be better than the PSL when all the critical
> nodes
> will have been flagged adequately.  Currently, there are uncertain areas
> using
> either algorithm.
>
>
> > I don't see why we would want to make things worse.
>
>
> A simple reason is backward compatibility.  But, from an editorial POV,
> specifying both brings an occasion to highlight their differences and
> analyze
> why one is better than the other under what respects.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>