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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 21 November 2018 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3366B12F295; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:39:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id heCl0Z4xB5dS; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57B6112D4E9; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x19so11178039itl.1; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:39:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FMVi1WOZurH850LcYQdN+Xo0yilXadqM44Q4CDxqT+s=; b=eM0tIi/d5dMXNe9mav6JqJW48Eg5pJF5NOUUSb2d5e3RZuUUU+QoZIBX/1Ozk56pUi WTVZ8AjeStJqNQrF11jHpsp/PjIQ7rkRZK5ybNWpDcqEZqSFc855MWQVdvsqyK6Gn31y g8yJIs4F3g4/MbjqnbldFdfSKZrrbR2YKUo1LNvdkPs6t6hHPa1bW3c3RgnrEXPyyYjV pV4m2bsW6Yn3DV2oVpQ498HP8szshJIqKCLW7L+1MTSNj3wl28InJHpompleSu83z3/P FbInNaESoaZSuximCzHMFGyE69Aw7oSQSP67dNzCcp+SEAXqAy4U4y2bL+TXT9VPytrO 4ePA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZM5In/uPg4DW45BDTCTTJfTmIBvfaqEOdRHn63/5qIZY/teozc R8+dOY0LnLyH2Aw4xVOt4ono4ngnLKMNekaLiciK9g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VoH877cqRcJhrH/2cqWsJTCe+3yF4rAEnt4IU5b5vTbAQhJ9reGbOERbGiGbpWbXvzWWojE3+6wZ978ExEHQ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd8d:: with SMTP id t135mr7077878itf.84.1542836384183; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:39:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:39:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
Cc: IESG <>,, Tim Draegen <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:39:47 -0000

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.

That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.


On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell <> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Leiba  (