I also agree that "SHOULD NOT" would be my vote as the preferred language going forward.
~ Matt On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:41 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
