I'd like to first thank Francesca for taking the time to review where the working group is as far as consensus.
I fall into the "SHOULD NOT" consensus group with additional non-normative language. The short version of the non-normative language should be in the document itself but I believe the issues resulting from deviating from the normative "SHOULD NOT" deserve a fuller discussion in a separate document. Much of the discussion has been focused on the impact to mailing lists but the impacts can involve a wider range of issues depending on the nature of the domain/organization and users involved. A discussion of those wider impacts in the context of a "SHOULD NOT" would be useful in educating domain owners, administrators and (even) users. There are differences in control and impacts between a corporate/organizational domain, government domains, domains which offer free or paid accounts to the public and personal domains for example. Advice to one of these groupings may not reasonably address the concerns and impacts for domains or constituencies in other groupings. Michael Hammer On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:04 AM Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini= 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
