IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 27 October 2018 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 6E8E4128C65 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 07:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=54BFPwh1; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nEnI71ra
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 8cLONrq8hJTE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 07:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4C63124BAA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 82217 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2018 14:44:14 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14126.5bd479be.k1810; bh=gGY6IcpBdkbnVjbd/Zm4l8ODgypgJwlsmUjQk8sYnQw=; b=54BFPwh1vNm/Xz2eId+pyyCLZhMyJYModuG0YrVtlKmaLRRIz0qMCtG2KT+c239XLfaqchi1xTD3mmyKNqbceqdtXgO0BEAZuy2NO+QTUqznAjbWkbl85TFZ4HEh4DdIymQ5OQ7KQet1TlGwsY7D4qMpegUUQDOuc993YaJJU3xpgAESjorUo+Sa2nZW/AlXm2G+qZp4J0bT0dUjcJnlL3JqQM4zZLUivalo6zkzC3kNK0D/FRn4QPHs3yv8vjGn
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14126.5bd479be.k1810; bh=gGY6IcpBdkbnVjbd/Zm4l8ODgypgJwlsmUjQk8sYnQw=; b=nEnI71ra1e9zr109rAS8ci0UHIJJ6Fbo8nDPqAgi9zJMXZfD23yq2/PAkjj8SfH33Hk3p8n4e7Gsym0g5PEetdo6MYt0ZBf1HEg5EQ2DM+IlcMdKQl4O5+vjLFIpH1sASrP7Sep0n9zEpfytfkkPvRKEs8pxrp7z4k4SOiWJ1nPXtlsxPs8F8pJ1cN8Kj/ZkPn6trmyJLYEDveNOuG1g4rovYiAdZtzR6uZ/1BqEv0m9YnQ5C60GBvPHNtIhSVNZ
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 27 Oct 2018 14:44:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6892B200728CF9; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:44:12 -0400
Message-Id: <20181027144414.6892B200728CF9@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZ9x4tZhMFWrCGN4LNxTCHbSDMRJGAECuAJoev7VnGj=A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5Wq4ggsBj4D-qkmW2_Xg-mU53R4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18
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, 27 Oct 2018 14:44:18 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwZ9x4tZhMFWrCGN4LNxTCHbSDMRJGAECuAJoev7VnGj=A@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>At least 7601bis will be an RFC at the same time as this one is, if not
>sooner.  I don't know what the plans are for the other one.

Also see Scott's LC comment on 7601bis.  There's a bunch of stuff in 7601 not
in the new draft, so 7601bis is really an update, not a replacement for 7601.

R's,
JOhn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email