[dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 14 January 2019 09:54 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 7F4CF130FC5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:54:42 -0800 (PST)
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 jLpjkPYLujzl for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:54:40 -0800 (PST)
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 5169612896A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 01:54:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=gamma; t=1547459678; bh=2l0WP33m3B/U/QNqEIfPkhBFfvJRY0nvI3ZiN9Dx5r0=; l=894; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CetHgD4Y3d0Ni0itD+Jy1F6DtHdcYZDtHk2Y8eepXK3stEA304+4NkqlEaubP/sRU vO1cHlaGtqf25AqtA9lQC8OtEFROq2dXE6QiZA94Q8CYCwLfDvhy2MZVVA8MqQp39L kB3WAhsA77sIxFMd3IM0cGxPqwurlRojgStP0acnYb6bgmPDxidkzf5u+Vpe1
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:54:38 +0100 id 00000000005DC013.000000005C3C5C5E.000006FD
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>
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>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <2272f6d5-6c80-b80d-4aff-bdcc69449cf8@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:54:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6mwXLaRdZ3vdOgRihp1U5iwx5_E>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...
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, 14 Jan 2019 09:54:43 -0000

On Sun 06/Jan/2019 06:45:57 +0100 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.html


I see sender-id still has full citizenship.  Now I'm not clear which will be
first, but my feeling is that rfc7601bis and
status-change-change-sender-id-to-historic are going to be published more or
less at the same time.

When a method is moved to historic, are the corresponding parameters in the
IANA registry moved to deprecated?  If yes, should the move be stated by which
document?

Thank you
Ale
--