Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 03 November 2018 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 8DE50130E06 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 21:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 7xGYKH48Kaaq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 46FFF12958B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id z80-v6so3419734ljb.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jjbgndV/N2CQHd0EC5mXlxmuwCILR1IZwTUqJIYodUw=; b=Sdpat5oBmCUHt+VG1tbORjON1ToWtbO7L0j/CXMfD451M27KdTd26ZDeOPB4Nv8E03 mLCc1XuGMUsIoQKMiZeT8bz25mTNrEVFaqEU8PTFyxeCj+be+5qP2aFYlMG5uROBZt2T +qCtPf6IDoECPzs2tg9SkLhkFgSZHr0y/V5oqWuy6lnfjHGpffo5qFbB8/wWJXVGBnuL ABRIll9Nz7UiJpiFNLizWL0XKi+Ltfw6BUfGwQkDxBVy756SSP1HZFcfThuVVGaAxjmt k5AgLx1LpdajGAAqnzSvI+7VXVtB1a/lpoOYdzOLU7t2HFm0GyFJcW+x0Ubiui7nRf/l EqMw==
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=jjbgndV/N2CQHd0EC5mXlxmuwCILR1IZwTUqJIYodUw=; b=ezPIdLVrPeNZmq/1DyJG7EGZb1LK6EOAaJM4oCZmDz9YpdZ1vOGWdeLjrfP2us2WeC 1fIDy8P8Nb0SZTsw3fegjr8OrNTnK2sofXbK61NqiTpMFnw2LW9F0gw3SaX7PxkGxZd/ vR0taRouum/K/zviJTXkakQ3mKnJKerwlYuFNFqPik9IPt5I3DY4IxaK7+UokVz/4ZGz aBwZt7Uan7fU3HZQonkJnc37EJFEHAC24zewB7ZJ8Voe/FcI9AaK7RKEdSLvCRk/W7GV /jZR4WNkZ5WX9blsWU/54ZOWdAfADYaSoPNJOK4qBoMiDTrUl/DjRX2IcN1prAUl+fUS AL6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJNuB3ibcVjSsJIVwmuznlzaQPVFbfr2ImcLWsCCIJ0ZpMwUlos tAy0DIHSz9OxEWWZczrOIVoxQZaQIv+KLURKXQfiRFHX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eabG00ZZgE2cV8x//A976FS/mekGS8PbXxHdFPtmERY54g1s4GYfn/RUT81mzNg50tp+C4c9NW4WXG0Bl+qJw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e53:: with SMTP id g19-v6mr10134506ljk.39.1541219083304; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 21:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c378a@isode.com> <CAL0qLwZjLzUdWH+sz=TifJEF-zQVevUHug=um9+6dUvU_5f4dA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1476B7-C994-43C4-9449-55B9771E5C84@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1476B7-C994-43C4-9449-55B9771E5C84@kitterman.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:24:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYz7FKYjn-7CAe8xN_fZ9HFRnNCPWTq=uU6VhG6xHLdOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb45720579bb07fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-aYtq-AUha02x2zklJiPvsY_7G0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt
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: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 04:24:47 -0000

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:44 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
wrote:

> >Sorry, what's being deleted?  RFC7601bis doesn't (shouldn't!) be
> >deleting
> >anything; it adds a couple of entries and makes itself authoritative
> >for
> >the registration of the header field, but otherwise nothing is
> >changing.  I
> >thought that was pretty explicit.
>
> What should the reference be in the registry for the existing entries?
> RFC7601 will be historic, so that hardly seems right and they aren't listed
> in 7601bis so that doesn't work either.
>

I think your questions (to which I haven't replied just yet) are quite
different than Alexey's statement that something has been "deleted".  I was
trying to resolve that.

-MSK