Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt

There is a difference between silencing dissenters and saying that the
dissent has been discussed and the rough consensus disagrees with the
dissenters.  Everyone needs to understand when they've lost an
argument -- not because people are against them, but simply because
reasonable people disagree, and we need to make a rough-consensus
decision -- and move on.

In this case, my reading of the discussion is that (1) there are good
arguments and plenty of evidence that PCT isn't working consistently
and interoperably, that PCT is mostly not necessary in a Proposed
Standard (as opposed to Experimental or Informational) version of
DMARC, and that the main use case that has been raised for retaining
it is a binary, on/off situation.  I believe the working group has
*rough* consensus on that, recognizing that agreement on it is not
unanimous.

There is a *proposal* for handling the binary situation differently.
I believe the working group as a whole has expressed interest in that
proposed solution, though we do not yet have rough consensus on the
details and text of that.

Barry, as chair

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 6:19 AM Douglas Foster
<dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the subject of PCT, we did not reach agreement, we reached silence.   Silence comes across as a move by the majority to silence dissenters.   The chairs are empowered to decide whether this is an appropriate tactic by the majority, and whether a majority or supermajority is a sufficient approximation of consensus.
>
> I believe that PCT is a weak solution to a real problem, and that eliminating PCT makes the problem much worse.    This situation will operate against the interests of all legitimate participants.    PCT needs to be improved, not discarded.   There is a lot to talk about here.
>
> Doug Foster
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu 19/Aug/2021 21:37:06 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:22 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator
>> >> currently advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it thought
>> >> it was asking for.  One could argue that this constitutes "breakage".
>> >>
>> > It has been argued by some that an operator currently advertising "pct=33"
>> > (or anything other than 0 or 100) was never getting what it thought it was
>> > asking for in the first place, hence the discussion about removing the pct
>> > tag.
>>
>>
>> Argued by some is not the same as rough consensus.
>>
>>
>> Best
>> Ale
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc