We can limit the transition period by specifying a date, after which any untagged record is interpreted with strict alignment.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 11:10 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Once again, participating only: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 3:43 AM Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [...] >> > >> 2) I believe that the document needs a vigorous explanation of why the >> PSL needs to be replaced. I made a stab at the effort in the text that I >> sent Sunday night. Murray's text here is more comprehensive. But we >> need something. We are asking evaluators to undertake a change which >> requires effort and any change creates multiple risks. >> > > I don't know about "vigorous", but I think some tutorial would be useful > given the wide variability of experience in the ultimate audience. An > appendix would suffice. > > >> 3) The critical question is whether we can treat the PSL as replaced >> without obtaining the markers first. On this issue, John and I have a >> different assessment of the risk. I can accept a solution which lays out >> the assumptions and risks to the evaluator, and lets them decide what to >> do. This is what sections 4.7. and 4.8 in my text from Sunday night >> attempted to do. >> > > My suggestion would be that if we are going to offer a choice, there > should be some eventual path toward convergence rather than an open-ended > period of people doing either. Otherwise, the PSL will be a part of DMARC > for far longer than we'd like. > > -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
