Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>> some traction out of both groups:
>> 
>>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
>>> policies due to interoperability issues
>> 
>> Leaving aside (for now) the question of what goes into [some appropriate
>> description] and with the assumption that there will be some non-normative
>> discussion to amplify whatever that is and probably give some indication about
>> what domains might do to not be one of those domains, is there anyone who just
>> can't live with that formulation of the situation?
>
>
>Me, for one.  Because more than 98% of domains are going to fall into the description, however we word it, that statement makes the whole I-D nonsensical.  Cannot we just tell the problem without MUSTard?
>
>In any case, using the complement of [some appropriate description] is certainly easier.  For example:
>
>    Forcing authentication into Internet mail by publishing restrictive DMARC
>    policies breaks some well established patterns of usage.  Publishing such
>    policies is thus RECOMMENDED only for domains [in this other appropriate
>    description].
>
Thanks.

I understand your objection to be that the proposed description of the interoperability problems would apply to too many domains, regardless of the modifier we might use.  Is that correct?

I don't understand the technical issue associated with that objection.  I get that you feel the construction is too negative, but I don't have a sense you think it's inaccurate.  Focusing on the technical aspects of this, would you please help me understand what you think is technically incorrect about it?

Scott K