On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:53 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr= 40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> On Wed 18/Aug/2021 22:17:57 +0200 Todd Herr wrote: >> > >> > The main update in this draft is removal of the "pct" tag, with an >> > explanation as to why, and an introduction of the "t" tag in an effort >> > to maintain the functionality provided today by "pct=0" and "pct=100". >> >> >> As held earlier, I disagree with such gratuitous breaking of the >> existing installed base and published records. >> > > I disagree with your characterization of removal of the "pct" tag as > "gratuitous breaking"; the spec has long contained the following text: > > Only tags defined in this document or in later extensions, and thus added > to that registry, > are to be processed; unknown tags MUST be ignored. > > and so should a DMARC protocol without the "pct" tag be formally adopted, > there should be no breaking of any existing DMARC implementations. > Not expressing an opinion on the new text, but just on this point: I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator currently advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it thought it was asking for. One could argue that this constitutes "breakage". -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
