The short answer is it depends. We don't vote. Here's the longer answer:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 Scott K On November 11, 2023 6:59:20 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz <n...@marmot-tech.com> wrote: >What is the definition of rough consensus. That is if you took a vote, 100 >people voted yes and 3 voted no, the three win? Id there’s a document that >states these rules I’d be happy to dig into it. If there’s a rule we should >have a vote. Who is entitled to vote? Like I’m new to this and so it’d be >understandable if I’m not entitled to a vote. That said, what do the rules >say? > >> On Oct 23, 2023, at 9:07 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 23, 2023 4:03:36 AM EDT Francesca Palombini 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/ >> >> I don't think this is consistent with the IETF's mandate to provide >> documents >> which promote interoperability. I do not, however, plan to file an appeal >> about it. >> >> Scott K >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
