+1 for SHOULD NOT. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 12:14 PM Matt V <ietfdmarc= 40emailkarma....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I also agree that "SHOULD NOT" would be my vote as the preferred language > going forward. > > ~ > Matt > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:41 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd like to first thank Francesca for taking the time to review where the >> working group is as far as consensus. >> >> I fall into the "SHOULD NOT" consensus group with additional >> non-normative language. >> >> The short version of the non-normative language should be in the document >> itself but I believe the issues resulting from deviating from the normative >> "SHOULD NOT" deserve a fuller discussion in a separate document. >> >> Much of the discussion has been focused on the impact to mailing lists >> but the impacts can involve a wider range of issues depending on the nature >> of the domain/organization and users involved. A discussion of those wider >> impacts in the context of a "SHOULD NOT" would be useful in educating >> domain owners, administrators and (even) users. There are differences in >> control and impacts between a corporate/organizational domain, government >> domains, domains which offer free or paid accounts to the public and >> personal domains for example. Advice to one of these groupings may not >> reasonably address the concerns and impacts for domains or constituencies >> in other groupings. >> >> Michael Hammer >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:04 AM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini= >> 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> I have been asked by Murray to assist with a consensus evaluation on >>> the discussion that has been going on for a while about the dmarcbis >>> document and how to move forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have made an attempt to evaluate consensus on the topic, trying to >>> look at it from a complete outsider’s point of view and trying not to let >>> my personal opinion bias my assessment. This is a summary of that >>> evaluation. It is based on several threads in the mailing list: [1], [2], >>> [3] and recordings of the IETF 117 wg meeting [4]. I also tried to pay >>> attention to chronology of comments, because some people have expressed >>> different support for different proposals, in which case I consider the >>> latest email I can find as the person’s latest opinion. >>> >>> Although that was mentioned, I believe there is no consensus to move the >>> document status to Informational. I believe there is a rough consensus that >>> a change needs to be made in the text to include stronger requirements >>> admonishing operators against deploying DMARC in a way that causes >>> disruption. The mails go in many directions, but the most contentious point >>> I could identify is if there ought to be some normative MUST NOT or SHOULD >>> NOT text. Many people have suggested text (thank you!). I believe the ones >>> with more tractions are Scott’s MUST NOT proposal [2] and Barry’s SHOULD >>> NOT proposal [3]. I believe most people who’d prefer just descriptive text >>> have stated that they can live with the SHOULD NOT text, but they have >>> stronger objections towards the MUST NOT text. There also a number of >>> people who strongly believe MUST NOT is the way to go, but these people >>> have not objected strongly to Barry’s latest proposed text in the mailing >>> list (although they have made their preference clear during the meeting >>> [4]). As a consequence, I believe there is a stronger (very rough) >>> consensus for going with Barry’s SHOULD NOT text. I also believe there is >>> consensus to add some non-normative explanatory text (be it in the >>> interoperability or security consideration sections, or both) around it. >>> >>> I suggest the authors and the working group start with Berry’s text and >>> fine-tune the details around it. >>> >>> In particular, as another AD that might have to ballot on this document, >>> I suggest that you pay particular attention to the text around the SHOULD >>> NOT, as also Murray suggested in [5]. I have often blocked documents with >>> the following text: “If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at >>> least one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions >>> and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to arise. Examples are fine >>> but, except in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A >>> statement about what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the >>> "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a >>> MUST.”. >>> >>> I appreciate everybody’s patience and constructive discussion. >>> >>> Francesca, ART AD >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z2hoBQLfacWdxALzx4urhKv-Z-Y/ >>> >>> [2]: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wvuuggXnpT-8sMU49q3Xn9_BjHs/ >>> >>> [3]: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/k6zxrKDepif26uWr0DeNdCK1xx4/ >>> >>> [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O28ShKGRAU >>> >>> [5]: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ld-VObjtihm5uWd9liVzMouQ1sY/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmarc mailing list >>> dmarc@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
