On 4/21/2014 6:13 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. In fact I think it's exactly the opposite.
> At a minimum we need to:
>
> (0) Document that the choice of a p=reject is inapproriate for anything
> but a domain devoted to business transaction email and fully describe the
> consequences of using such a policy on other sorts of domains.
> (1) Document alternatives to labeling your mixed mode domain with p=reject.
> (2) Describe the various mitigation strategies - and their consequences - for
> agents dealing with poor DMARC policy choices, including but not limited
to
> advice to MLMs.
There already is a first-round internet-draft formulated to be a BCP
that could be a reasonable home for including such statements:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03
Yes, that's the obvious place to put this material, rather than putting it
in the base specification. But then the base specification has to reference
this in a normative fashion.
Of course "formulated to be a BCP" doesn't imply actual publication as a BCP,
but even so there would be something a bit odd about having DMARC base as
independent publication and the DMARC BCP as IETF work.
Ned