IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Mon, 27 May 2019 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B1C120157 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8r-c76GPof5F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1FDE1200F1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:647:4300:2290:62a4:4cff:fe65:83dd] ([IPv6:2601:647:4300:2290:62a4:4cff:fe65:83dd]) (authenticated bits=0) by v2.bluepopcorn.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id x4RKFEd5000822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; t=1558988116; bh=7iJRUybYWnbSyWPU43BwYm0S4STkVvUjAOUSI1NMiN0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RJG8OnTTJ8Tw8fRbP26cdos7Z5WopgjehphR6DLQjHYH5ljk3ud92VigND4pa+dJb THYu6lhRuFWo17aMoYIZOGAtv+vtFVZ8RY4K3b1ptku4IRDfpuPaguwv/Ax9xwVP97 ILVdDPYl2uYd5Uk8IXiv85GMOvz0llf5EjifIlXg=
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905241036450.50141@ary.qy> <280824a0-536b-91f1-8072-f7d1cf3051aa@bluepopcorn.net> <789c58b1-7b45-3af0-dd1b-aca0c415db02@gmail.com> <5f12bf4f-ce25-c2d8-7cab-10eb41182eac@bluepopcorn.net> <b1192f9c-0816-c333-54bd-df2ad10c701b@gmail.com>
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Message-ID: <c4116e0c-cfa3-1b6b-8dc4-2ee02b2d00ad@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 13:15:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b1192f9c-0816-c333-54bd-df2ad10c701b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uiHV2sgEqcnAmAHuCtGgS3weM4k>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 20:15:19 -0000

On 5/27/19 11:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/27/2019 10:23 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
>> On 5/25/19 1:53 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>
>>> Ultimately, you are asking marketing questions, not technical ones.
>>
>>
>> OK, so let me ask a technical question: What is the technical 
>> justification for the requirements in Section 8? For other protocols, 
>
> A section like that typically seeks to establish a basis for minimum 
> capability of usable implementations.  It sets expectations for 
> capabilities and limits.  An amusing bit about this particular one is 
> that, in spite of having the word "requirements' in the section title, 
> none of the content language is normative.


I hadn't noticed the lack of normative language in this section. In that 
case I would propose removing it because it does not serve any purpose 
and because it might mislead others who, as I did, misinterpreted the 
word "requirements" in the section title.

-Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email