Still no hat on. I can see the compromise in language that's been proposed here, and I appreciate the effort by the chairs.
Two things I'd like to raise. First: On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:55 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might > post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject. > Domains that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD implement > policies that their users not post to Internet mailing lists. > Some of my IETF mentors (ahem) taught me some stuff about the use of SHOULD [NOT] that have stuck with me, and I'm going to pressure test this against that advice. Let's see how this goes. :-) "SHOULD" leaves the implementer with a choice. You really ought to do what it says in the general case, but there might be circumstances where you could deviate from that advice, with some possible effect on interoperability. If you do that, it is expected that you fully understand the possible impact you're about to have on the Internet before proceeding. To that end, we like the use of SHOULD [NOT] to be accompanied by some prose explaining when one might deviate in this manner, such as an example of when it might be okay to do so. Does anyone have such an example in mind that could be included here? Specifically: Can we describe a scenario where (a) a sender publishes p=reject (b) with users that post to lists (c) that the community at large would be willing to accept/tolerate? The second thing is that the level of disruption we saw on the IETF lists when "p=reject" was rolled out prematurely suggests to me that "interoperability issues" by itself is a bit more euphemistic than is deserved. Can we add in a word like "serious" or "substantial"? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
