IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82DC31267BB for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:09:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com
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 09Zd3f006F55 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16099124F57 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D59D8C4025F; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:09:17 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1513645757; bh=5bZtx32qODcCvnoSzv/ZlCLDnBDUATGqbLNlaUHL9DM=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:From:From; b=dxt+Md0R6wC8M5jUGl9xAy3to+1HeNu9ogJTCxSgHAfcgedUSbz74TsNZhtfzBqcn odmRX8+sqm/bokVkaUVM6YweuwyCoJRKFEi3+seu9leQeK0nvGQpMgkr5Xh0js5/E5 nCDcPtRwLwsXDtByFprXhpT3Xcc2OR6+cpOMqPWs=
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:08:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwY16ytGUFhg1+PWRFE013Nn_MuFDFmv+j9PziD3sg7vXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwb_WHM_e2odpc6gL2birKvVCKGpTpnW0oO_OUqWwFuo_g@mail.gmail.com> <2270822.kPNmBh82Ph@kitterma-e6430> <CAOZAAfOuk1NVQ8r8QRbQt6=WwGwk70dk1-m=5JhNhmoVgHykxQ@mail.gmail.com> <5898513.HCQYKTO1iX@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwY16ytGUFhg1+PWRFE013Nn_MuFDFmv+j9PziD3sg7vXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dcrup@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <D193EB8E-AF69-4FDC-A1FA-1B9D5D4E3ACF@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/5LxbCaiAY4bX8tsMZ8dusrXF-WM>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:09:20 -0000


On December 18, 2017 7:26:55 PM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Scott Kitterman
><sklist@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 12:28:36 PM Seth Blank wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Scott Kitterman
><sklist@kitterman.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > That's what the reference to RFC6376] Section 3.9 does.
>> >
>> > Yes, that was what my nit was about. Right now, following the
>reference
>> you
>> > still need to infer that PERMFAIL is the appropriate response, and
>the
>> > question was if it needs to be explicitly stated in conjunction
>with the
>> > reference. "No" is a perfectly acceptable response.
>>
>> OK.  That's copy/pasted from the -update draft that's been through
>IETF
>> last
>> call/IESG approval already, so I'd go with "No" then.
>>
>
>This document has been through neither of those processes yet.  Are you
>thinking of the usage document?
>
>-MSK

Sort of.  The language is identical to how we did it in the usage document (which has made it through those hurdles), so I think this document should stay consistent with it.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email