Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

I think it ought to be resolved by the same AD that made the consensus call.

Scott K

On February 29, 2024 8:58:21 PM UTC, Dotzero <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I agree that the rough consensus landed on "SHOULD NOT" even though there
>were some who felt "MUST NOT" was "purer". I was one of those who
>(reluctantly) supported "SHOULD NOT". Todd is simply trying to get
>consistency within the document to match the outcome that there was rough
>agreement on. That is the new issue he is opening and not rehashing the
>previously closed issue.
>
>Hopefully the chairs will rule on this so we don't have a previous issue
>reopened during last call.
>
>Michael Hammer
>
>On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:53 PM Seth Blank <seth=
>[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I thought we landed on SHOULD NOT, there was strong resistance to MUST NOT
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay.  I think 8.6 is the one in error.  You see how this is going to go,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> Scott K
>>>
>>> On February 29, 2024 7:45:15 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >It is not my intent here to relitigate any issues.
>>> >
>>> >Rather, I believe that the text in 7.6 is wrong, likely due to an
>>> oversight
>>> >on my part when the new text in 8.6 was published, and I just want to
>>> >confirm that 7.6 is indeed wrong.
>>> >
>>> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:10 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued to
>>> death
>>> >> in the WG?  I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will, no
>>> doubt
>>> >> get to have this conversation during the IETF last call, but for the
>>> >> working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of relitigation of
>>> >> issues we've been counseled to avoid.
>>> >>
>>> >> Scott K
>>> >>
>>> >> On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=
>>> >> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >> >Colleagues,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the
>>> first
>>> >> >set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes
>>> beyond
>>> >> >minor, so wanted to get a sanity check.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following sentence:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for
>>> >> >general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6,
>>> >> >Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic (e.g.,
>>> "It
>>> >> is
>>> >> >therefore critical that domains that host users who might post
>>> messages to
>>> >> >mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject")
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for
>>> >> >general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject",
>>> yes?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> dmarc mailing list
>>> >> [e-mail]
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmarc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer
>> *e:* [e-mail]
>> *p:*
>>
>> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
>> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
>> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
>> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
>> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
>> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
>> this email and then delete it from your system.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>