Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880F211E80D7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id woAx4AF78i9F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA2621F8D26 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hm11so4596233wib.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GvEK+kXGVes2cHDkfr51FHblR7/lBeYtjcU66FqeDj0=; b=TOD76xfRWbvY1oWhy/2UplNs41RRhRJbHfjMVblvJkW+jekblTdYUIuxZnp3vSsfIb fhfivKM4ePDJ9dh5MwPK5O0K5cVvHtJA943N8KlNR+Qx5T/W9jmqBhAOQQluAc+/oggu 4FFJxoEta1SX+xoWKpkJnS8FEAnxwa2sofs82NI4Ch2kuIb3YKt5bsZniuUNU/CYSZsj ObSAT45gNNNoGdR2T2zBJL8GdRT1T1Q6mYEzhAqFIK30wRgIkDF29kD5+MMMN+G51SyY QDuYoPv+f3cgns9EptFDoSYYmf8XbS5p0NBX+Y9ddd34+RXipT9xSGiqUCncnZ9Q1AaQ OKWQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.242.163 with SMTP id wr3mr6725720wjc.35.1363291744945; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.189.6 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbgjnt8Msofok3ExKBmChtQPfMEFgrrZBimEzU5CYgSjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbgjnt8Msofok3ExKBmChtQPfMEFgrrZBimEzU5CYgSjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:09:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYHAV4TBnnNRrmEX0BHyvUM+OuBSUXTVCAVAAgx8RvKug@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1da82ed8fe04d7e81845
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:09:14 -0000

Reviewers might find this diff from RFC5451 to the current version to be
helpful:

http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis-from-rfc5451.diff.html

-MSK


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>wrote:

> I've uploaded an update to draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis for review.  It
> incorporates the feedback I've received over the last few months since the
> last version.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis/
>
> To recap: RFC5451 defines a standard message header field for recording
> the results of things like DKIM and SPF by border MTAs so internal things
> like MUAs don't have to repeat those checks.  This is an update draft based
> on operational experience since the proposed standard was originally
> published in 2009.
>
> So, two things:
>
> 1) Reviewers, please!  I think this is pretty much ready to go as it's
> been around since last June with some reviews, but nothing lately.  A final
> glance by some of the apps community (especially mail people) would be
> grand.
>
> 2) I'd like to process this through APPSAWG.  Salvatore would have to
> shepherd it since I can't shepherd my own document.  Is that a reasonable
> path for this work?  There isn't an active working group doing SMTP things,
> and we know our ADs would prefer to avoid sponsoring things if possible.
>
> Thanks,
> -MSK, participatorially
>
>