On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 4:30 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > I think "a" would be cleanest, but I think it would cause too much > backward > compatibility trouble and should not be further considered. In previous > working group discussions on this I recall specific suggestions that this > would > be problematic and this is supported by the short survey that Elizabeth > Zwicky > reported on. > The problem with what Elizabeth shared, and I do appreciate her sharing it, is that what she shared doesn't show the extent of the variety of behaviors in those "sibling" relationships. Because those are undocumented and not understood AND it isn't even clear that those relationships and behaviors are what is intended by the "standard", serious questions are raised. Can a "standard" that allows a variety of undocumented non-standard behaviors (and outcomes) be considered a standard? The details behind some of the examples given by Elizabeth indicate potential abuse vectors beyond my original concerns. Unfortunately, the receiving organizations most able to provide detailed examples are unlikely to provide them publicly due to privacy concerns, embarrassing customers, etc. It might be useful if an organization like M3AAWG could process detailed examples from members,obfuscate the organizational information and share it publicly as an aggregation of examples to inform a better standards creation process. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
