Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

From: Tim Draegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 02:50:12 -0400

> On May 30, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:13 AM John R Levine <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> As far as I can tell your proposal to break the document in two has 
> gotten no support at all.  Can we stop now?
> 
> What's on topic for the group and what isn't is the purview of the co-chairs and the charter.  Let's please not stifle discussions before they die on their own absent chair action to the contrary.

FWIW, one reason why the document lists the XML today is to emphasize the importance of this reporting piece.

A few people are fond of saying: email receivers can do whatever the heck they want with their email. Part of DMARC's "social contract" between domain owners and email receivers is to allow email receivers to implement DMARC's policy model "safely" by means of telling domain owners via reporting what the email receivers are doing.

In other words, the model works as email receivers can push support burden back to domain owners *if* aggregate reporting is in place. As simple as it might sound, keeping the XML parts in the 'core' document is (was?) supposed to make it very clear what parts should be considered required.

-= Tim