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

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Mon, 07 January 2019 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 4D241130E9A; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:09:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=j/IOxBAG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=bzHtmNFM
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 b1B5huVK_9w0; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2523B130DE7; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032292206F; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:09:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Jan 2019 06:09:41 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:subject:references:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=YXa yO5+Selv2bRNBANear2PQ50BeQ1M7tYQyMBWJx4Q=; b=j/IOxBAG1R5ZUKVfmbJ a1K5Eqv9a8KmztWq59Z4ubxLfCxFqlOiSFlBuQORSup8A00WhRNxsYfK0S3Cy7Cc qp0sjE9esuUVnf4dO26O4RHg3uAX1lWsLX7TZoD+Op8y11s/KNsRAiDcqAP78QRz ucv6oJvogCbjcTSToCpCOKEbsFj3KLhmDkiqosPWdcWVAH4JdGKMeAlnTCLaTiyz KPZtNlnBWDK+EkAyBwuZcVA0CFJhj7VSjn8K6vEcACpNa3mrXD2HL7TJb1Nr+ZAa BLh3Kmb4LJjAo4NpgxutKC/tEqAxnv7qnxA1qXCyEK9kX3XKWGaS1XZ4CJtYPovR tdA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YXayO5+Selv2bRNBANear2PQ50BeQ1M7tYQyMBWJx 4Q=; b=bzHtmNFMSAcRF+ktDyy5lCqKOETltB4gytMzJxgahLQaRoNBVeZHmeHb0 jiSvKjhyi1Py93oXOWGXzEdn5ona1xdMn2qW5AW+eNwZw4ejLrfnxx20PVnV2Xn/ KlXRJGbu9MaWc08idWpB03DCVTLsP6TtIyepwmQdxEfW7NEovQJr1cBb2FuUtjTc Ku9WXHjZWbAzbOjUrVRceyr6Hp/IBoIlmTphugKM9eMqr+Pf1dStqGxLDghgxMwJ pxzsT23MX90mfI+LjmUbYNghX7JWV97FOr3Pdb6KjnpKxQZIjHVFHVYFuB9fQsG2 Yswi9qU916CzHLr9Hnqdi2kLIpkeg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:dDMzXDnA_B3JrbFQC5zQ8eWt1UP1hgicAwy3GQ0ByDssB0T_RCO0VQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrvdejgddvvdculddtuddrgedtkedrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkffhvfgggfgtofffufhfjgesrgejreerredtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlvgig vgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhcuoegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh eqnecuffhomhgrihhnpegslhgrtghkohhpshdrohhrghdpihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhinhht vghrnhgvthhmvghsshgrghhinhhgthgvtghhnhholhhoghihrdhorhhgnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmhenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:dDMzXLiHvcTcoC2Mw-joJ6JOZdXoyaOX1XhnBaj1vTqScuYSbf4MXQ> <xmx:dDMzXGc1MoasKkjIR_f9CI39L89pTfELQvWTCh22B-dtcZEY6FICaQ> <xmx:dDMzXIe6yQk37gCg-AEez7DQRNkcwJcOjuPeAZ8mNrye-uT2dJcc_g> <xmx:dDMzXG0ohnZRABno2FHdWGGqmCxSbe08mi8uIxh_QK6SvdjJJDPP4w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 0E2C29E22A; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 06:09:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1546859379.2718501.1627553176.011EB82B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_154685937927185011"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-fc1a05a6
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 11:09:39 +0000
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJ_d96SuGEQ=n9nqM=foBO3jVPTqimeojVsEHUHC7kLiw@mail.gmail.com> <1543604417.3723984.1594680736.00216E5A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com> <1543613485.3765543.1594837224.1E64FAB8@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6m8MStVYNNAhpcNj11XFnNf0HIo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and 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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 11:09:45 -0000

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
> <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> 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
>>  > <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> 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 <ben@nostrum.com>
>>  > > > 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  (barryleiba@computer.org)
>>  > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
>>  > > >