Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Once again, participating only:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> [...]
>

> 2) I believe that the document needs a vigorous explanation of why the PSL
> needs to be replaced.   I made a stab at the effort in the text that I sent
> Sunday night.   Murray's text here is more comprehensive.   But we need
> something.  We are asking evaluators to undertake a change which requires
> effort and any change creates multiple risks.
>

I don't know about "vigorous", but I think some tutorial would be useful
given the wide variability of experience in the ultimate audience.  An
appendix would suffice.


> 3) The critical question is whether we can treat the PSL as replaced
> without obtaining the markers first.   On this issue, John and I have a
> different assessment of the risk.   I can accept a solution which lays out
> the assumptions and risks to the evaluator, and lets them decide what to
> do.  This is what sections 4.7. and 4.8 in my text from Sunday night
> attempted to do.
>

My suggestion would be that if we are going to offer a choice, there should
be some eventual path toward convergence rather than an open-ended period
of people doing either.  Otherwise, the PSL will be a part of DMARC for far
longer than we'd like.

-MSK