Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Here's what I've come up with.  This is a diff between RFC7601 as
> published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the
> DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review.  Please let me
> know if I've missed anything.  I'll post it at the end of the coming
> week if there are no issues raised.> 
> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.htmlThis is looks good to me. One small ABNF glitch introduced:

>authres-header-field  = "Authentication-Results:" authres-payload
>
>authres-payload = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id

You have "Authentication-Results:" twice now. I think you want to delete
it from authres-payload.
> 
> -MSK
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov
> <[e-mail]> wrote:>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>  > Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
>>  > sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
>>  > appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection
>>  > that>>  > says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
>>  > document, RFC 7601:", or some such
>> 
>>  Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged
>>  from RFC 7601:".>> 
>>  >), and then let's have a quick
>>  > working group review of the result?  (And, of course, change it
>>  > back>>  > to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".)
>>  > 
>>  > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any
>>  > approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move
>>  > forward.>> 
>>  I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue
>>  for the final document.>> 
>>  > Thanks,
>>  > Barry
>>  > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov
>>  > <[e-mail]> wrote:>>  > >
>>  > > Hi all,
>>  > >
>>  > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>  > > > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go
>>  > > > back to>>  > > > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of
>>  > > > what was>>  > > > put in the registries before.  But the working group decided
>>  > > > to do it>>  > > > the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs
>>  > > > (and, so,>>  > > > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of stuff, so I
>>  > > > decided to>>  > > > let it go.  I'll let the IESG sort this one out, but I'll go
>>  > > > on record>>  > > > as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.
>>  > >
>>  > > I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of
>>  > > dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document
>>  > > is self contained and there is no need for readers to see
>>  > > obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.>>  > >
>>  > > If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs
>>  > > editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.>>  > >
>>  > > Best Regards,
>>  > > Alexey
>>  > >
>>  > > > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.
>>  > > >
>>  > > > Barry
>>  > > >
>>  > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
>>  > > > wrote:>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>  > > > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
>>  > > > > reply to all>>  > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
>>  > > > > to cut this>>  > > > > introductory paragraph, however.)
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > Please refer to
>>  > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>>  > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
>>  > > > > positions.>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be
>>  > > > > found here:>>  > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > > > > ---------->>  > > > > DISCUSS:
>>  > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > > > > ---------->>  > > > >
>>  > > > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern
>>  > > > > about this being>>  > > > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full
>>  > > > > replacement. I'm>>  > > > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be
>>  > > > > resolved before>>  > > > > publication.
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > The current structure will make it very difficult for
>>  > > > > readers to figure out>>  > > > > which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think it
>>  > > > > needs to either go>>  > > > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just
>>  > > > > talk about the>>  > > > > changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA
>>  > > > > considerations in>>  > > > > 7601 will need to be copied forward.
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > > > > ---------->>  > > > > COMMENT:
>>  > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > > > > ---------->>  > > > >
>>  > > > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly
>>  > > > > avoiding unnecessary>>  > > > > changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than
>>  > > > > they are for bis>>  > > > > drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic
>>  > > > > changes.>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > >
>>  > > >
>>  > > > --
>>  > > > Barry
>>  > > > --
>>  > > > Barry Leiba  ([e-mail])
>>  > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
>>  > > >