Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 11 June 2023 12:26 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 0BC03C14CEFE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cPm8weE_A_JO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4668DC14CEE3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9745baf7c13so493561166b.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686486370; x=1689078370; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=G04Wm093e9oIOtDph2mxSLUOiHx1wL9TcLe7ACoenp4=; b=hg94ew+mrn0/FrgpTe3Q5ZEcjXB4bV+eW6y2IDYCLJYbeWLRQSmUc7FXxI8NRZgpBJ lFGG21T+Qfw5eAzlkB4BUFi3wHK0fnv7Mg2V0F9CFVchSK6Vg4PsTtGV0vhsz+l4ca26 ctCn48XEUlBUusxUEpyFViS1rbooq/Z2IA9sJ3aSa1XL2C8JOsHvR2eo1br+SIeVJ4Wa /KegZwfZRJ61/mkHdlwBfp6Vo6vLQWP+SxxDdCXMRhsjjysYfi697jvKFn92QN6BN79o Ih++kFKwMuECWP2dK2sdhCYwi97Ai8VEuJGBvrtT0wCzhDqC0Tj7bk+LNM9s6ybzkH1+ p+rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyhRn33d+Vybdn14tZymu9YnXJb0vVBKr4uFd8f3SvkHSSIl2lk CbnACDE4ay/QhH1IQudHsxDBZiBmLQ/F/yyo5PXa6tiX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6mWRjmZiHwG5BjPUIaaApGanTe1F5BNOZ09ImYExUx+NveYHfmUMLXe3aecrzweYUZ5nnSSAaVRm/ht658v+8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6a15:b0:973:e349:43c8 with SMTP id qw21-20020a1709066a1500b00973e34943c8mr7085372ejc.69.1686486369261; Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <502ADE6F-E01E-4DF0-BF79-6A5E810A3F96@kitterman.com> <20230610210457.B4C22E924922@ary.qy> <D5yjYjBhnPhkFAAJ@highwayman.com> <f0959b49-9caa-f087-b580-5da57cad587c@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <f0959b49-9caa-f087-b580-5da57cad587c@tana.it>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 08:25:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJWiX5Wbs_fsDpZxY5cOgbO+W2d+HRh=rTR5pJkVb-3jA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3KEAiIGy963ZlGfSwtb7uS_h2rw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 12:26:12 -0000

> What if MIME-Version changed on every new MIME type?

(I presume you mean "subtype", as we've only defined two new media
types: example (RFC 4735) and font (RFC 8081).)

This is a red herring, as MIME was specifically designed to be
extensible by adding new media types and subtypes, as well as
parameters, charsets, and the like.

We aren't talking about an extension here, but a change to the basic
mechanism of the protocol.  We decided that the change from PSD to
tree walk was sufficiently compatible that it's OK without a version
change.  Removing SPF validation is a less compatible change to the
protocol, and it makes it a different discussion.

Best to avoid analogies: most of them fail and are only distracting.

Barry