Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Separating DMARC alignment validation from DMARC policy

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:52:47 -0700

I am not a fan of splitting documents only for an abstract sense of 
cleanliness.  There needs to be justification of improved documentation 
'cleanliness' and/or useful removal of fate-sharing -- if separate fates 
are reasonably expected.

DMARC alignment validation is a basic, mechanical process that produces 
a yes/no response.  At that level, it's comparable to the nature of a 
DKIM validation, except for the From: field domain.

DMARC "policy" is fundamentally different.  It's not that its mechanism 
isn't "mechanical" but that its semantics produce more semantic and 
operational challenges.

I think that could reasonably make it worth strongly separating them 
into two different documents, no matter has small one of the documents 
might be.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT)

The MIME document split was, in hindsight, partly successful (separation of
media types registration was a really good thing), partly unsuccessful (part
five should not have been pulled out of part two), and partly a wash (the
cost/benefit of separating parts one and two ended up pretty much equal IMO).

The devil is always in the details. The DMARC alignment validation process
appears free of policy considerations as currently specified, and is thus a
candidate for separation. But are we sure it will remain so, and is the
separation of a relatively small part of the specification worth it?

				Ned

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:37 -0700

> into two different documents, no matter has small one of the documents

I think it was you that suggested having the determination of the
Organizational Domain be its own distinct process.  Would that fit into the
first document, or should that also be something external?

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:37:09 -0700

On 7/28/2020 9:59 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Organizational Domain be its own distinct process.  Would that fit into 
> the first document, or should that also be something external?

I'd wish for that to be entirely outside of DMARC, because the issue and 
the mechanism are not specific to DMARC.

d/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jul 2020 14:00:53 -0400

>the mechanism are not specific to DMARC.

Unfortunately, we all know where to find DBOUND.

I suppose now that the smoke has somewhat cleared we might take another
run at the PSL problem, trying harder not to boil the ocean.

R's,
John

PS: https://github.com/jrlevine/bound