Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Mon, 14 January 2019 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADA31277BB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=drkurt.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 XsolS3h_VG8z for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA10D12D4EC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id k2so17807058iog.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TESckSnfRa+ISeIpfy9CbPvPYjMVM06xdHXxehOCqnA=; b=XKiTlE99JPlJUFwIC8aKoz571sDDsMIkgGdzCXtcYwo0mooU8z11yXWrZc7l0Rnf33 1Gh3Ak09nXoTN1MaBVsvCDzq3/B4uycmAIshUvX9PIDR/DQwOEdTNhIPafimfpBDuHeh MhUzKCGcxMlROLKe7NlpGXN7drozZd04Mjqn8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TESckSnfRa+ISeIpfy9CbPvPYjMVM06xdHXxehOCqnA=; b=BvtKnbl0J65YlwMqmSHvBIWBrQFjKvnJc97kHTIy7F6kwZv6JET4zn6WdG4MeTCE2g dZNsJtU95uVTVHWDL0JaDhD6kWU2drfxm3PA6fRMhXfkiq8EkJ1EbM0Tx50QKueLti9J vnFFm0C3Wif51fYcT5z0J0vTk1Ptwg/W5tt9iH27FC3UGeOLDhG+w5Mzb/H2Jhq7Oz5t KWsAPJTz6L39ByukV0axXHKucJsGmbudO3CYJB573/Mr6j9vTullDYuBgF9DVzUUuL1T uA1z5Aey7A1IsgdztboLSKesAjTdpyIwl7rmYVsJ8UT8YcVVZIjR63sfHSxj6tIWFVcQ JOag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfKGpp7btYuUQ0GWPS6JRf7ZDjCuKo/AFtycPESaPwpXm+LmB3c GFdugy8Go5NtHMWD7IuA1fPFuxKOMpUzUKmx0MyTgA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5isF0D9vRctOUJrryMABwb3vZ9AaHHrEaB8n5ap4zm1RbsO9DxFzz5JNBLIvOb45FaIWRzqdO+q1cclBw+muA=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6306:: with SMTP id p6mr16840554iog.196.1547478131952; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com> <2272f6d5-6c80-b80d-4aff-bdcc69449cf8@tana.it> <1927558.aO5YKDjPkr@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwYpExvrBh2tRUoFNRqkUBefqr2S-F5jh6xVR=fyRTjhBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYpExvrBh2tRUoFNRqkUBefqr2S-F5jh6xVR=fyRTjhBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:02:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qtj6bz81225CjE9kbQfaTA80X18obkb8tvTwZNO8i5fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a6718057f6c5403"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-Q8FIn3qnyeWzMbYExVBxmDGstw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:02:20 -0000

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:03 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I see sender-id still has full citizenship.  Now I'm not clear which
>> will be
>> > first, but my feeling is that rfc7601bis and
>> > status-change-change-sender-id-to-historic are going to be published
>> more or
>> > less at the same time.
>> >
>> > When a method is moved to historic, are the corresponding parameters in
>> the
>> > IANA registry moved to deprecated?  If yes, should the move be stated by
>> > which document?
>>
>> A quick look at Domainkeys in the registry and RFC 7601 will answer that
>> question for you.  Let's not hold this up.
>>
>
> +1.  This was not identified in IESG Review as something that needs fixing
> so I'd just as soon not make more changes now.  If we keep changing it,
> it's going to need another cycle through the working group.
>

I had flagged the lack of deprecating Sender ID in my notes to Murray.
Since he did not comment back on that, I had assumed he was good with
ripping it all out (or marking it as obsolete).

--Kurt