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

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Fri, 30 November 2018 21:31 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 CB5ED13104D; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:31:30 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=S/tVjeLM; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=F3IILKHp
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 wwwR-IBTqNK4; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9C0D131036; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01FB22B; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:31:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:31:28 -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:in-reply-to:date:references:subject; s=fm1; bh=JE3 lBhwNn8iUAS8mG5F6k9qXNCV9+8HWjg+xKQjYiqY=; b=S/tVjeLMFYYLyCG8OkR pqz1NUTAHjj2oXcdxOBU990m6sj/Ur1Wq+uo+jADCVE8XtjMPSUAPn3gA/0Srobg 2BXyn9ArOD9Y+OYl8bzYp+hmKRpE2ci/ziQxi3SxRComR3Oc1fAu0goNUjbvG+A0 2+ye+Sx6RFJifLUodPse7PVqiR36+cY6wbOuT7cumIW/HIkAGtwqnrx++OQRD9c+ PhoeIcrvdxo6PxfNRFTSOLoe7sFMfNnq9sYemnhC2IIDESXALp3RQxKtRZ81u9za eSnOnDcZy4BkHlCo8sGKdXiMryctXZxDSymNiHkt9O4ISTSDeKn0G7yowVYuuvwE SCA==
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=JE3lBhwNn8iUAS8mG5F6k9qXNCV9+8HWjg+xKQjYi qY=; b=F3IILKHpmHZqG/ZrTlSxzDxnvR4YBCf5bpS9aBTBaC7q3hxNylIeyVBZ5 iWFLtZxXaXdEWOTK1TbJVKyPjwlb+4+CPqu321ekXagjVvuXYLVnST8ppFzFY4aD k+Fr45jZkfank0F1wrU9UFCs9dNiLLeSklyr/dkecocn83dPMsVgIOX8wOHVBMcg hoGyBLZQWsUhx1Y5OXzXyOQXBWOmqhnvK1mOEiDsRHq3jCvnaLDNsYwyzm0+XBB4 yTUqdNoZVo/g73IlGUeh9X3jgGFcqpPgWZ8QhaT5ursIBQEDxhK0EnUoPPfF8LgJ oJ39fki7E59egcesdzvLy/0gjbCdA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LawBXLE5QMy7psZ9aHTd0qmlnqCl5gQbIO12-bMoIul86Ro6KbOGsA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LawBXCDw0XaRQj5vrP-w2GiS5l-fqw9dmEQuXWNSAiwqYd1igtrHEw> <xmx:LawBXIY9XZu0AWl3EBExTAjBvZjPKyIaICMlMgNzxkt4-WcWRqlwVQ> <xmx:LawBXOamXUnq6HrTavK6OG865VXMiuwbj-8KL88x-VRF1d8QD-sl6g> <xmx:LawBXJkGo38moKYV3Ts-lQ4cN0FTA1LEBPEbWPA9PiN8fmq9ay0CIA> <xmx:LawBXARXrJJBGHWc4otDjm4H_oeMvMwrb3VUPBKeYhiXETzo2VljRA> <xmx:L6wBXMOjC4SLfyUhKVEzdusdgijA9pTBzZTFuh_Ydshcyzz7KYX32w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id BE9B19E114; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:31:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1543613485.3765543.1594837224.1E64FAB8@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, 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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-3449945b
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:31:25 +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>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/DIsEQkbMiy1vPJ6GBhjC_Sa4gqA>
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:31:31 -0000

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/
> > >