Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 20 November 2018 20:44 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 D3F3712D4EF; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:44:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Z9mEq7KwWwNn; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f170.google.com (mail-it1-f170.google.com [209.85.166.170]) (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 67B9512785F; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f170.google.com with SMTP id c9so5709848itj.1; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:44:57 -0800 (PST)
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=Dj/TYEnVMzT8wQs12ZGDFe2Gug121AOaPHzNDuh6428=; b=NwyJeNA7rbH8/dIb4p2ShrHO2jOrO8vvz/GfkEXbNs+NXqxO47ZLJi5ryILiz6pJwk S5er3nKfGjGkmVCAR9xeWqs4w2sh8EqoOKeXbWKOVvaoB20aWqD5gACG4AA8vCtJwNAF Md6xE+tzZlS7O1Te9VcyxtYvA87GKaYZ/tIcsfnYcV0jxPt3bAXYcY7P5YJML6oBv1vA a+QU2pl8DfRmasAPkne8e8JIz+80kcJXvQbBA/jH2U3Qx/JwAuE1XQCwoocMfhg+z8PJ VrNWrf9sqmH3yb8X1+aFE8iR8J83U1q9WGYP3Udr27QtGBcIfDWiMRMYBRfwOBOlMdjL THzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWadvqM1InfMV/GKo3Gj6QmS3HyR6KCRhCyGJrlNLBPBmhiL8JH6 GKlQWlTQnYRQkJ04gwfYgidDuXu5Px0b3+fnwb8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dTX3NPQtcGh4HpeiZWSoZvMI15qCgdFUI/jC3/nVzbuT8DWxaSxnyLTpBnwqo8QRX1OuBA+K1AWmkBMPu+1uc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:778a:: with SMTP id g132mr2943795jac.140.1542746696301; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:44:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154273521107.29833.12344323303560312131.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154273521107.29833.12344323303560312131.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:44:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJJH9ffTDWhNKzpYcm8hWuy488VbLvB6iOaXEYLT8XKtuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0GCA6zItz21OH3Il6X1CKQ3vwig>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:44:59 -0000
> The Phase I description is still included: "Draft description of
> interoperability issues for indirect mail..." Isn't that rfc7960?
Yeh, we did this too quickly, I'm afraid. We should make a few other
minor changes to reflect the now-past:
OLD
The existing DMARC base specification has been submitted as an
Independent Submission to become an Informational RFC.
NEW
The existing DMARC base specification is published as Informational
RFC 7489.
END
OLD
Draft description of interoperability issues for indirect mail
flows and plausible methods for reducing them.
NEW
Draft description of interoperability issues for indirect mail
flows and plausible methods for reducing them. This is now
complete and published as RFC 7960.
END
OLD
Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows
NEW
Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows;
this is now complete as draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol
END
Alexey, will you make those changes, please?
--
Barry
- [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on char… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on … Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on … Alexey Melnikov