IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 05 November 2018 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
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 1BB3712EB11 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 mEWtrSpzZrwa for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f182.google.com (mail-it1-f182.google.com [209.85.166.182]) (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 BE657120072 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f182.google.com with SMTP id v11so4971026itj.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 22:47:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hxtwFcVSNnPV5vR4Au+oyGdb4wefmbxB3jpugEfOgUw=; b=QafGzO+8qA+mkRKUmVFCXbRSTHSJdOGdFDkGwLvnm71r/6OuDOCkuMh5kKnJHG3Le3 rWOJOLFCumRAaagwbgshmr9IBfpPhdeLbVuDqtXSo5pfeR07p4hgGdfR8q6AB4B23FRe 9oZgNnBPRlHJWLoW6K4au9Omdnil+qdmijuIwkjYZqbGx6UxC/rpBS5tMuVZ/nrlb7WB mziTK4B7jPyRgp7z2UJu48pdqC8QWotq+MuICGDG8zQPP2U5Ra5kdX83EOv8qzMuAaIf Lyb3Q859Blx+cnyYtFxbreIJvgD68RqXqk1iNkvXZj1rHHcQal114OQO4kyB0g87cy69 nt0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLUmTpvZFNDkKHNRGkfsH/MftL3EdUZSYuBqRi6iT0LGF/CgFoI EE1igLqttvC/PQ3Y0hB/V2APjEJPf/fKuK3G62k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fDVGc9M6poHlebUbtwmRV/kgqGgK/7XnqbPY9T6pdCzNXc85Mnr0d2igEzVetpALpXy0vRenmrcsT6pH8+yVk=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:b4ce:: with SMTP id a14-v6mr18369506jak.140.1541400419484; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 22:46:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0c273037-69c0-a37f-7cf6-6c9a90ad3291@isode.com> <CABuGu1p3-pMD=uyDSROttdaduoAEUhSsv3yGV+itxBhxmyKqAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDeex7+U5gJkdWim=50vDAF3qYsrWh2j=7MDYT0DYeQqA@mail.gmail.com> <D0A1D1D8-9640-4195-8FDB-830DD7243035@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0A1D1D8-9640-4195-8FDB-830DD7243035@isode.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 13:46:48 +0700
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+KP2jRm4xMg-hbbwrqb2i_8C4_k3ZMGuK5C7N196aj6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FPlHz5HmxOQQgB5sDgS6OJ8XSjw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18
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, 05 Nov 2018 06:47:02 -0000

> >> Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the impression that one could not
> >> refer to I-Ds as normative.
> >
> > One can't, so that means that this document will be held by the RFC
> > Editor in a "MISSREF" (missing reference) state until both of the I-D
> > are also in the RFC Editor queue.  Then this document will move ahead.
>
> True, but being "afraid of a MISSREF" is not a good enough reason to pretend that a Normative
> reference is Informative.

Of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that it was.  I was
explaining that we *can* send the document forward with a missing
normative reference.  "We" do not have to wait for it to clear; the
RFC Editor will.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email