Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for rfc8601 erratum (smtp.remote-ip), was Do is need a new ptype?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 03 December 2019 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C5F120072 for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:36:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 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, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hW7x40fxWd4T for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EECB12002F for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y13so3290706vsd.9 for <>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:36:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jIWsRGVN+TVw2C9fOxSampYR+iDsQazZ1qvtdylJbh8=; b=Y4Zf+P6V7rEJnYGVwbOuxuarGfxiwMVhhA6KD4XsHI5o2OXf7aZHaN2kMA9FPnRomc Aov/W4qp9sFodjlxgVm4CXM36dQ9Mnh0yLl4Ci0hnyM5UqyLwiDyZaL2WvwMGqF3DnAa 99jgWcC8NSnEFpcFoprw6D8WfYjo8IElQHGGAO7rqFB/NQkrmxRqgcTEtVw41bnzh5ci D5ykMA8TlQ02wc9OaeVFdri/i9KNM7ynKmGyIBt5FcZaOZcL77ve8D6QUWCEf4XJMUvz +5bMEKXYBhrLXLvNLLxeG+mjufmASXpZwGdKp96OwsxOMctLIViFe/KZSl5P7iQg/68J 7YNw==
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=jIWsRGVN+TVw2C9fOxSampYR+iDsQazZ1qvtdylJbh8=; b=O15pAOoo5vxSZp5ZpUQqo18Ts2ePaaerT4hjI5EmYMkQMiB3eMzR4GjHhowFE+io/Z ttKhFHwhTIq/Kzc8g5gA3SH49HeklI8q0Is8YBRgRRplNqEsj86XtPpIhoefPt1Pi/pZ 26LE41wLFN9DdQ8ObuX7vPCUXcuzGsNviszqNDZsnZ5IyJMHlTxhlEb/24j+m9IgxC+Y imUN50TuENp7MzZ7yjjmbCXcKM9eALbzrlLYhHoTHN3D1h/LzBv61bFK0oMd1KeiPvtx ZLAR2CCtZBG9AfJXg5wcQDQPlu4jzK2Wgg6gpbtwa/lHHjEpNGrDGk+CWrcof9MlNa3l gBMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+0Vzc9xVmpoCxi15Rx8RNS2cmxkyGTV9mDEz4MDf9xxdNMeab Seb83TulnqDu5oUhxQoDR3weoU6uQIvt7c64hgo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7nIQhdJhCBQuwJ9UeIHJdY+4fvn7yl0oR0gZMPv3cTDowblnk9GQkZW/PW0+OQODch/8Kg/kwG7BaOO1nSO8=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:d198:: with SMTP id w24mr4260938vsi.13.1575405361324; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:36:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:35:49 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Alessandro Vesely <>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f069620598d2a451"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for rfc8601 erratum (smtp.remote-ip), was Do is need a new ptype?
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:36:05 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:23 AM Alessandro Vesely <> wrote:

> >> That's not what the RFC Editor erratum system is for.  The document
> >> reflects what the WG intended to publish at the time, so this isn't an
> >> erratum, it's a new change to the specification.
> Yes, as DE you could change it without an erratum.  However, an erratum
> would
> serve as a justification to any reader who followed the definitions and
> noticed
> a mismatch.

No, I don't believe the designated experts are free to make edits to the
registry spontaneously.

I've never seen an erratum used to cause a change to a registry, but
there's a first time for everything.

The thing I note is that you're proposing here an erratum that
retroactively claims a change to RFC8601 in anticipation of an RFC that
came later (RFC8617).  But it doesn't seem like the WG really thought of
this at the time it advanced RFC8601 for publication.  Indeed, the explicit
definition of the "smtp" ptype in RFC8601 Section 2.3 is unchanged from the
document it replaced.  So again, this doesn't seem like proper use of an

I think this group would make a better use of its time by discussing
> rfc7489bis
> than rfc8601bis.

Indeed, yet here we are... :-)

> If group consensus can be enough for the time being, an
> erratum can also serve as a reminder.  So I ask for it:
> [...]

I think we need guidance from our Area Directors here.  I think I'm fine
with making the change, but I believe this is the wrong way to do it.