Right, I understand that view, but since the chairs have already stepped back on this issue, who should make that call?
Scott K On February 29, 2024 9:26:42 PM UTC, Seth Blank <seth=40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >It was already resolved, Todd's point is that the text in 7.6 was never >updated to match, which was a mistake he wants to fix transparently. > >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:04 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> I think it ought to be resolved by the same AD that made the consensus >> call. >> >> Scott K >> >> On February 29, 2024 8:58:21 PM UTC, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >I agree that the rough consensus landed on "SHOULD NOT" even though there >> >were some who felt "MUST NOT" was "purer". I was one of those who >> >(reluctantly) supported "SHOULD NOT". Todd is simply trying to get >> >consistency within the document to match the outcome that there was rough >> >agreement on. That is the new issue he is opening and not rehashing the >> >previously closed issue. >> > >> >Hopefully the chairs will rule on this so we don't have a previous issue >> >reopened during last call. >> > >> >Michael Hammer >> > >> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:53 PM Seth Blank <seth= >> >40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> > >> >> I thought we landed on SHOULD NOT, there was strong resistance to MUST >> NOT >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Okay. I think 8.6 is the one in error. You see how this is going to >> go, >> >>> right? >> >>> >> >>> Scott K >> >>> >> >>> On February 29, 2024 7:45:15 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr= >> >>> 40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> >It is not my intent here to relitigate any issues. >> >>> > >> >>> >Rather, I believe that the text in 7.6 is wrong, likely due to an >> >>> oversight >> >>> >on my part when the new text in 8.6 was published, and I just want to >> >>> >confirm that 7.6 is indeed wrong. >> >>> > >> >>> >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:10 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com >> > >> >>> >wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued to >> >>> death >> >>> >> in the WG? I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will, no >> >>> doubt >> >>> >> get to have this conversation during the IETF last call, but for the >> >>> >> working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of relitigation >> of >> >>> >> issues we've been counseled to avoid. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Scott K >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr= >> >>> >> 40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >Colleagues, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the >> >>> first >> >>> >> >set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes >> >>> beyond >> >>> >> >minor, so wanted to get a sanity check. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following >> sentence: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for >> >>> >> >general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6, >> >>> >> >Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic >> (e.g., >> >>> "It >> >>> >> is >> >>> >> >therefore critical that domains that host users who might post >> >>> messages to >> >>> >> >mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject") >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for >> >>> >> >general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of >> p=reject", >> >>> yes? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer >> >> *e:* s...@valimail.com >> >> *p:* >> >> >> >> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or >> >> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) >> >> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized >> >> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or >> >> distribution of the information included in this transmission is >> prohibited >> >> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to >> >> this email and then delete it from your system. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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
