IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-05

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7341A1B327D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xHhzWgs0HG-H for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0793.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::793]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEDCD1B31A7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc6 (81.151.162.168) by DBXPR07MB063.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.147.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.125.19; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:51:12 +0000
Message-ID: <00f901d07854$99087a40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <5518019A.7080508@isode.com> <2383989.tErOfD7dMh@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwafcwp0jtpYPS48i1HMwYv8rAjj3-5bzLCbKsxJAQdNFg@mail.gmail.com> <F0A34BD2-E25B-4190-B7FA-CFDA2C2CF6E6@kitterman.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:40:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [81.151.162.168]
X-ClientProxiedBy: HE1PR02CA0041.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.162.33.51) To DBXPR07MB063.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.147.22)
Authentication-Results: kitterman.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB063;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(51704005)(13464003)(377454003)(77096005)(15975445007)(87976001)(62236002)(47776003)(1720100001)(77156002)(62966003)(4001410100001)(66066001)(86362001)(46102003)(33646002)(93886004)(116806002)(23756003)(61296003)(92566002)(42186005)(81686999)(81816999)(122386002)(50466002)(19580405001)(1456003)(19580395003)(40100003)(230783001)(44736004)(50226001)(84392001)(76176999)(50986999)(44716002)(107886001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB063; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DBXPR07MB063BD24B7889EE0803CC57DA0E40@DBXPR07MB063.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5002010)(5005006); SRVR:DBXPR07MB063; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DBXPR07MB063;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0548586081
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2015 14:51:12.1257 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB063
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/ugHmkpLT7_r7drs2aC-aM2AvhZ4>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Apr 2015 14:51:40 -0000

A new consideration:-(

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes/smtp-enhanced
-status-codes.xhtml#smtp-enhanced-status-codes-3

X.7.25 has a reference of [Section 3 of RFC7001]   (although I am not
clear why).

Perhaps that will need updating.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <scott@kitterman.com>
To: "IETF Apps Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-05


>
>
> On April 8, 2015 1:07:04 PM EDT, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Instead of getting into a bike shed discussion about what's common
> >and how
> >> can
> >> we tell, what about something like this:
> >>
> >>   At the time of publication of this document, the following are
> >>   published, authentication methods:
> >>
> >>   o  Author Domain Signing Practices ([ADSP]) (Historic)
> >>   o  Domain-based Message Authentication,  Reporting and
Conformance
> >> ([DMARC])
> >>   o  DomainKeys ([DOMAINKEYS]) (Historic)
> >>   o  DomainKeys Identified Mail Signatures ([DKIM])
> >>   o  reverse IP address name validation ("iprev", defined in
Section
> >3)
> >>   o  Require-Recipient-Valid-Since Header Field and SMTP Service
> >Extension
> >>        ([RRVS])
> >>   o  SMTP Service Extension for Authentication ([AUTH])
> >>   o  Sender ID ([SENDERID]) (Experimental)
> >>   o  Sender Policy Framework ([SPF])
> >>   o  S/MIME Signature Verification [SMIME-REG]
> >>   o  Vouch By Reference ([VBR])
> >>
> >> None of these are marked deprecated in the registry:
> >>
> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml
> >>
> >> As a result, I don't think we should treat them differently in the
> >text
> >> beyond
> >> noting the status of the relevant RFC.
> >>
> >
> >Seems reasonable to me.  I'll do that in the next version, which I
> >won't
> >submit until WGLC closes.
> >
> >Tom is correct that the IANA Considerations section does update the
> >registries appropriately.
>
> Great. Given that, it might also warrant a sentence along the lines of
"Methods marked as historic are deprecated in this update".
>
> Scott K
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email