Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing report elements and dmarc.org information based on deprecated drafs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 08 August 2019 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 0CC8312025F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 yiCtyxhe2mHE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AABF412024D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1565262694; bh=GBoeGM7jKSDvIBVNYpeHlp7hyyI2zKWC/KHFsdJWp7s=; l=760; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CVahvGhwgCaogSexJDNYLT411qCNB+xsPd/7gZfGGj1lTwPFsrQG0vCNclUotBnTc KiWzWQU4nqnU6dXNxqigNqHbv0W2yjlPCycoQUAVh/xZJdrkm6P1Dan6SREagLHNn6 EcS5ZC6+HoNBZTe9n4ZmI5ZNBJE4LgoZHek8H9LufUbRp4+K4jdlGSaR+z+of
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([5.170.69.76]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005D4C0366.00006C59; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 13:11:33 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <016301d54d26$88020f30$98062d90$@leemankuiper.nl> <CAL0qLwb7+ev8Z51syh5EgO0-4Kf0g8JoYHX67G_=Jps_UmrKeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <b022a1c6-8a5d-d996-bae6-a6ab25b0ceac@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:11:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb7+ev8Z51syh5EgO0-4Kf0g8JoYHX67G_=Jps_UmrKeg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1stOw4kA7Za1JFSc3ekiWZ9t5CE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing report elements and dmarc.org information based on deprecated drafs
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:11:38 -0000

On Wed 07/Aug/2019 17:54:53 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:46 AM Freddie Leeman <freddie=
> 40leemankuiper.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:
> 
>> I've been digging through the DMARC pre-IETF drafts and IETF drafts and
>> came to the following conclusion:
>>
> 
> Seems to me the working group has a choice to make here, somewhere between
> "reinforce the XML specification as published" and "take the consensus of
> what's implemented and publish that as the revised standard".  Either way,
> this should certainly be a work item for standards track DMARC.


I vote "reinforce the XML specification as published".  I assume that
is going to mean the next, standard track publication, not any
obsolete one.


Best
Ale
--