On Saturday, December 4, 2021 11:12:22 PM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:37 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > The second paragraph says:
> > Section 8 creates a registry for known DMARC tags and registers the
> > initial set defined in this document. Only tags defined in this
> > document or in later extensions, and thus added to that registry, are
> > to be processed; unknown tags MUST be ignored.
> >
> > Couldn't it say something like so:
> > Section 8 creates a registry for known DMARC tags and registers the
> > initial set defined in this document. Only tags defined in that
> > registry are to be processed. Unknown tags MUST be ignored.
> >
> > That way, fo, rua, and ruf definitions could be moved to the corresponding
> > I-Ds.
>
> Those two paragraphs read identically to me.
I think that their effect is the same, but the proposed change is simpler and
clearer. For purposes an implementer striving for interoperability might care
about what they need to know is that the registry is the authoritative source
of valid tags. The text about this document or later extensions doesn't add
anything and may be confusing.
Imagine a case where some years from now a tag identified in this document is
determined t be obsolete and another document disuses it and it's removed from
the registry. A strict reading of the current text might lead one to believe
that because the tag was originally defined in this document, it's still
required even though it's not longer in the registry.
I believe the revision makes it clearer that the registry is the authoritative
source for determining which tags are valid.
Scott K
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
