On 5/20/2020 11:49 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/20/2020 8:29 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
Agree 100%
This looks like it has a strong constituency against the proposal, a
much smaller constituency in favor of it, and little or no offered
benefit. Yes?
Just like DKIM Policy had a "strong constituency" against DKIM Policy,
yet, the wrong decision was made to abandon DKIM Policy, only to find
out today (the last few years), it was the wrong decision. Just look
at the support we have today for DKIM policy.
Whatever.
In regards to the report format, I am proposing an easy
non-complicated compromise. Consumer will instantly benefit by
offering additional registered report formats such as:
csv
json
xml as the fall back.
The key is the register the tags, not mandate that verifiers need to
support csv or json. I am proposing an new tag "prf=" to be recognized
by standard DMARC verifiers but optional implementation of the
registered tags csv and json. XML will be registered and required
reporting format IFF reporting is offered by the verifier. Reporting
is not a requirement.
Keep in mind DMARC specs need a major cleanup in this regard and many
others. It mentions XML, but the "rf=" no longer defined. It says the
tag is registered, but no description describing its possible values.
We need to stop this lock down methods and expand the desperately
needed fix up for DMARC policy tags. We have discussed these issues
but the "smaller" entities in this group are getting absolutely pushed
out with no recognition. In the end, we get the usual, the "Follow the
Chieftain" syndrome and other folks, who may agree, stay quiet or just
agree with "chief" +1 -- no rocking of the proverbial boat.
Rough Consensus is good, but is not always correct.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
