Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
A general question: Is it appropriate for this draft to assist directly
in the enforcement of a normative SHOULD from other drafts?
No. As in, hell no!
One response I got to some queries about this issue went as far as
saying verifiers SHOULD NOT degrade "fail" to "neutral" despite this
concern, thereby limiting that action only to well-considered local
policy decisions.
The job of this spec is to carry information on behalf of validation modules.
It is not the job of this spec to change or enforce policies for or about those
modules.
It is entirely reasonable to provide additional reporting values, to allow
modules to report what they deem appropriate. Something squishy like 'neutral'
is a good example. Providing that option, as a canonical choice, is fine.
Saying anything at all about the choices really isn't.
That said, this act of reporting through this mechanism doesn't have much
history in the standards space (or, in global terms, much history elsewhere) so
that it makes sense to provide some pedagogy. But pedagogy is a long way from
normative or even non-normative prescription.
Please let's keep the document focused in its job, not the jobs of its using
modules.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html