On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 1:50 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm troubled by this whole section. Unless IETF is getting into the > certification or enforcement business, documenting anything about > "implementation claims" would seem to be a non-starter. Do we have any > similar requirements for "claims" about implementing SMTP, DNS or other > standards? We should stick to the normative requirements for > interoperability and avoid dealing with "claims". Folks who implement > poorly will get an earful from both their mail users and the folks they > interoperate with and that should be sufficient. > > This really does seem like pushing on a rope. >
I could see specifying the minimum implementation needed to interoperate in a useful way, if it's necessary to do so in a summary section. Of course, one should be able to glean that from the collection of MUSTs and SHOULDs in the document anyway, but summaries can be helpful. I should add to my other remarks that I don't think it's a bad idea to spend some text in the document describing how valuable we think generating reports is, and that we think it's a really good idea to find some way to participate because the intelligence it provides can be valuable, etc. I just don't think a mandate is defensible. -MSK, continuing hatless
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
