On July 13, 2022 9:51:31 PM UTC, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> said:
>>> Speaking as an AD now, you should expect me to complain about the "SHOULD"
>>> in Section 4.7.
>
>I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both upper and
>lower case.
>
>A lot of the lower case "must" was saying that one thing is the same as
>another using tortured syntax so I rewrote most of them to be shorter and
>clearer.
>
>The SHOULD in 4.7 is now a MUST, and I trimmed some excess words. Also fixed
>a similar SHOULD in 5.3. You have to ignore crud in the DMARC record, which I
>believe is what most if not all DMARC libraries do.
>
>In 4.4.1 it said that d=com cannot be an organizational domain because it's a
>PSD, which I fixed to say because it has no DMARC record. You can't tell it's
>a PSD because it has no DMARC record and never will but as previously
>discussed, that doesn't matter.
>
>In 5.8 took out a MUST turn an IDN in an A-R header into an A-label, since you
>don't have to do that.
>
>You can see the text diffs here:
>
>https://www.taugh.com/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-13-from-2.diff.html
>
>There's a github pull request with the changes.
These all look like reasonable changes to me.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
