Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <579385ce-b67d-9db0-0a9d-fdce9fece75d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:52:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hcGZBA28Jejy9XxtsFqNplZxUxQ>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Separating DMARC alignment validation from DMARC policy
Precedence: list

I am not a fan of splitting documents only for an abstract sense of 
cleanliness.  There needs to be justification of improved documentation 
'cleanliness' and/or useful removal of fate-sharing -- if separate fates 
are reasonably expected.


DMARC alignment validation is a basic, mechanical process that produces 
a yes/no response.  At that level, it's comparable to the nature of a 
DKIM validation, except for the From: field domain.

DMARC "policy" is fundamentally different.  It's not that its mechanism 
isn't "mechanical" but that its semantics produce more semantic and 
operational challenges.


I think that could reasonably make it worth strongly separating them 
into two different documents, no matter has small one of the documents 
might be.



d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net