The MIME document split was, in hindsight, partly successful (separation of
media types registration was a really good thing), partly unsuccessful (part
five should not have been pulled out of part two), and partly a wash (the
cost/benefit of separating parts one and two ended up pretty much equal IMO).
The devil is always in the details. The DMARC alignment validation process
appears free of policy considerations as currently specified, and is thus a
candidate for separation. But are we sure it will remain so, and is the
separation of a relatively small part of the specification worth it?
Ned
I am not a fan of splitting documents only for an abstract sense of
cleanliness. There needs to be justification of improved documentation
'cleanliness' and/or useful removal of fate-sharing -- if separate fates
are reasonably expected.
DMARC alignment validation is a basic, mechanical process that produces
a yes/no response. At that level, it's comparable to the nature of a
DKIM validation, except for the From: field domain.
DMARC "policy" is fundamentally different. It's not that its mechanism
isn't "mechanical" but that its semantics produce more semantic and
operational challenges.
I think that could reasonably make it worth strongly separating them
into two different documents, no matter has small one of the documents
might be.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
