IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed rework of the wording in section 2.1 of draft-dmarc-interoperability

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Tue, 08 December 2015 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10171A6EF4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:20:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=no
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 9SDRvt8IFZuA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BCA1A6EE1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgea14 with SMTP id a14so35135835qge.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:20:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9wUiTHZc/xmBRRhQRVLQIuOjcZrDzNKFqyJPb5MQ4nc=; b=YncZ8UnopVGvwladVke3JZkau4ZZzDIKSCPQfSHdoo7sDbVCQexJ1Lp28XhEj0Zr+o Gn3d2tJtSjecsPen34IG6ZmpiG1TGo6ZtTYqOT6IlCIUAVcznC7haY0Nam4shqS8b7m5 r/LIz8x+I8t2HGArf6zfLdzCpQiDVc2JJ2w0o=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9wUiTHZc/xmBRRhQRVLQIuOjcZrDzNKFqyJPb5MQ4nc=; b=ZIsWzKf5k2HDkPsB1R1lZj/ZAny5dMRoJKC6e64uw/6qF2UZI/mvQmyZS/EB8H3uC8 g5qD0wexrAB+5RIhfuc3e53bXcAuN+a3oMlOU4b/SHlhfyRNwzh/782ncEB/Lk78XS3n ovRE3eNYz3XWOr7JV9dkfvRmGD23ceY1JB2c3Rqc6/u3qJ3TuHx/yKYyId+Dw3BpkIGd 5LC3WCiFtQr6vGWw1nqw17mCod1D4DGy1EaJoGo7Norq90fmCsrPmz2j6cB8J4e48jvt LPFagESWB3BGGLEKl3vscm6Gpt4LBU2w6W1u6DbLAHIUsq5eDV33slgS5z/3vSxHLuaF tsGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1PypTKHK0cqaq5vR9x3J8FnXqOUQx5c6EPQV33s2r1JPPLK9LN7dCzs1sOQFWMDUbL0Es2UVoKX32et+Jyn7hsXGbDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.82.193 with SMTP id g184mr2156963qkb.65.1449606019664; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Sender: kurta@drkurt.com
Received: by 10.55.198.219 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:20:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <566720BA.5080601@cisco.com>
References: <CABuGu1pKn-nH57JzNQSqLHHxTZXe9CXWvz7bB6ynZ8PC7QOtTQ@mail.gmail.com> <566720BA.5080601@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:20:19 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 04n0k20JFoc7yENLOYrx8kHPMJU
Message-ID: <CABuGu1r6r6Pxt3GfHKGHYWZL1pCw12ZrYGjMLDCJ4URJWQ1Yuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a6fccddeb7d052668b3d5"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9tLhTPEcvaIGw53TxAeY1NB0WSE>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed rework of the wording in section 2.1 of draft-dmarc-interoperability
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:20:23 -0000

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> I need a bit more time to review this text, but I want to point out that
> one of my main issues was that an example or two that highlights the
> fields or the SMTP exchange would be helpful.  I am willing to toss
> something together for the group's consideration if you want me to pass
> the token.  Depending on their length I would drop these inline or in an
> appendix.
>
>
> Eliot


I can put together an appendix with some examples. I was thinking that
having a better explanation would provide more value so I guess I got your
suggestion backwards :-)

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email