Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/3/2021 1:42 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
> That doesn't mean that I think it's not a useful setting on the 
> journey from p=none to something stronger; it only means that I can't 
> remember the particulars of the rewriting that takes place and how the 
> domain owner can take advantage of information revealed by the 
> rewriting in order to eventually remove the pct tag.
>
> It might be this:

I'm not trying to argue against your proposal or the one that preceded 
it, but am concerned that there be a pretty clear and strong case made 
for specific benefit.  That is, clarity about what the benefit will be 
and clarity that there is shared agreement that the benefit will be 
obtained and that it is substantial.

The pct style of mechanism is not typical for protocol standards, 
although it comes from a common system development background. And the 
fact that its use in DMARC is prompting significant change to that 
mechanism warrants additional care in justifying it and documenting it.  
IMO.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[e-mail]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[e-mail]