IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Mon, 14 January 2019 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 0D35413124F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:40:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=a0Asf3Nz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pqr/7iZ6
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 bxyhAk-zJ8Zg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34AFC131213 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AF6288EE; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:40:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web2 ([10.202.2.212]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:40:10 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= message-id:from:to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:references:subject:date:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=1ns i8KWdeLs5qQJB8kmfR0L3nY4oZUb7ERkB4W3YctA=; b=a0Asf3NzMfu/mkwGeGY bu0G90bRRVmartavcZcDmDWZkFg8uiE8xU0+uR6t0tS18xrGS/kF9ou1WvBKy25S w4n3KruuC1Ci77ay95TYaUQ8HuMNGePHhCRW8v2sAYLPzz1Am4Vu6s3CJGHXdXtr vWPCrQRQm+OlsgsRVhsv6V0/qB6vF1NZY/UE8jlWphhgVE2uDA5TVmL8YW6aV4cm 53ZrUX+FLkZtHiV++yQQJAB+jLyy8A5JWGrnVTtYkmHQqbCuQIePExtpZOpGWjHE ij3iNOsRPdJPODgWLPn4OGYjbXb2uyRPfGkTPZ8zvc+61wv4MinWeYnnPTJbgJPv 3zQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=1nsi8KWdeLs5qQJB8kmfR0L3nY4oZUb7ERkB4W3Yc tA=; b=pqr/7iZ6tttsAHqLSvqvIGa9GH/xJRxzmQnulbUyD4UeOOgII/HfNAwoG N259QSLrj14fn/DA3R4/Phu0WvBBDUP8n9aYYmhP/ooBFXnX6Jjfdvwbv3VlxUmT NmOJW9eN5dhRqYGSvDAFDZ3f+qNiZ7qYtK8YS8XYU2HxpijWDHHGXu265e3Hn0qP CGQ/ojAREBcpjqb24bPcoA2+YRewoRyy2qrHMKE2lMJquKq5X+nsA9+IhX8X7npE fSuN7+h/aVEeR+SEfWmkMf27BE4LSyAStBe/DS8bodYCERfGNeHhSdsmDT3o5Zvv TT7MB2uHwTc/WqiZQVu0wJT+SJGUg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:idc8XJonnI1Vo2S5_EDo-6ssWlGBDMaCqml6oUO5R6G2HFR1i-PVqA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrgedugdduudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecunecujfgurhepkffhvfgggfgtofhfufffjgesthejredtredtjeenucfhrhhomh eptehlvgigvgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhcuoegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgr ihhlrdhfmheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfh grshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:idc8XBjKphc9mxbVX9llJMXiSc_fZW6Hb6IJHqaLTq779LdMnmVuzw> <xmx:idc8XBRpZhLyVouBzBUY0E9EiYGY_ME5sliLTvqMk48NRyInBdFCkA> <xmx:idc8XBvKErVhVe0LcatRwlOf_V_OK6eu21khKV9M2xOGY_DxLX35Rg> <xmx:itc8XHsmpIJKeI6eMcK06c5UFveeO7ON8l-66_j8g5aTadC_jzKO_g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id A049462325; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:40:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1547491209.3002084.1634374944.4B4105A9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-36e4bfd3
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9223F7C0-4412-4123-9DBA-7E0BDC822C32@kitterman.com> <CABuGu1pd=UGc5K6rkdNMnEVYwSO9-+b304PnrzsSAU-CY9BMhQ@mail.gmail.com> <3900818.4E7hUKDgJz@kitterma-e6430>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:40:09 +0000
In-Reply-To: <3900818.4E7hUKDgJz@kitterma-e6430>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-t1uEV3lpSYHBQTaR3gpr-17hYY>
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 18:40:20 -0000

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2019 10:06:02 AM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > On January 14, 2019 3:02:01 PM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > >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).
> > > 
> > > The registry update policy is expert review.  We won't need another RFC to
> > > deprecate Sender ID when the time comes.
> > 
> > Understood, but I was thinking that cutting Sender ID mostly out of 7601bis
> > would be appropriate.

I think removing them from 7601bis != removing them from the IANA registry.

> So far we have not removed any registry entries, only marked them deprecated 
> (domainkeys for example).  I don't think there's any particular rush to start 
> now.

Entries should never be removed from an IANA registry, as this would defeat one purpose of having a registry. They can only be marked historic/deprecated/obsolete, as appropriate for the registry.

Best Regards,
Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email