On December 6, 2021 7:16:06 PM UTC, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >On 12/6/2021 5:29 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I think what better goes in this spot is a more general comment about local >> policy (it doesn't seem to be discussed elsewhere). > > >"Local policy" is just another way of saying "doing something outside of >the specification". People are always 'allowed' to do whatever they >want. It has nothing to do with interoperability through the specification. > >Telling people that they can do things outside of the specification is >not helpful. In fact, it often is counter-productive, because having >such language in a specification makes it seem to carry extra weight. >Which it doesn't. For example, it often seems to be granting permission >or constraint, but it is doing that for something about which the >specification has no power or authority.
Agreed, in general. Somewhere we need to explain about how ARC related to DMARC. If it's going to be in the protocol specification, this is the place. Otherwise it would go in the appendix I keep mentioning that we need which explains options senders, intermediaries, and receivers can do to mitigate DMARC interoperability challenges. I think it's slightly better to do it in an appendix , as long as we remember to write it. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
