Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Tue, 15 January 2019 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 4398E128CE4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
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 33jJvvqEpcoD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x135.google.com (mail-it1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (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 1D2F212785F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x135.google.com with SMTP id b5so2124345iti.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z2hMuM1rx57SsUa2GVc/p3UAgHOYt3OZ+eV2quWYqAk=; b=Byuo3+TDwCeaUY9mDpYtdhQu5t1k9aKtf614ipETeuqczQOz9GN1oOs/DPLTANxoKS J3SM8gk0McY6sHguG3x8Rk3wAqwTJuaCtZGy82YgPVnzBbiYEevQfGxMTW7J2kKh8Dqt IJGZJUAaIuxvHViK57B1pHSVtjvgI6W/4JVB4=
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=Z2hMuM1rx57SsUa2GVc/p3UAgHOYt3OZ+eV2quWYqAk=; b=XevNXJWSLsaUxMQRyE3KHa7gF5rgVBz6nXnvqaLwAyaB3GmYincjR37hH6RBDxl/1K 45W/t0f3+FutasM9RZXaSVYNsJ+7OGH1jqDFaUY/5twtw5z3POLy6YdqmQEtNhKTYPnI r3lVt5Zpa3HvpGWFkdu87Mjkr9tFAPwZN1PGWfjLD+dZVNvm9+cv4o1bUft8mctss8vw SewrPJ8nw9EbD41oIrRjsfTT5Xml+04n48tjAA4T2IS5dEzgdOzKy8R7O64ruzriOGY0 jPQOoR77VOZo38fzTMChdRtHNRayBBPMMw+VRkenIj85wYsiF3FCrSnUa5siVQJkccrK tsoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdIDy8HaYM1VkuyPZyl5LhDTVC3aFTRxicHdHDK7pPTNllFhm8t HXeMZmBQK2rMjq+rTFhjKPIti0aoEM//fYnsmPuQs809xWA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN59PJdD3MTQgiGmKYhDfdKLLWQnv0kum4cqV93HyjtfHAqGKfaF95S+ETbtJDvllWCkATs8Zz+oC12sw1xNVU8=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:3047:: with SMTP id q68mr1229115itq.78.1547511617152; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3900818.4E7hUKDgJz@kitterma-e6430> <1547491209.3002084.1634374944.4B4105A9@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1798090.dmMY03Hzt3@kitterma-e6430>
In-Reply-To: <1798090.dmMY03Hzt3@kitterma-e6430>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:20:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABuGu1r+fMbR+xDsnfsgJFSHc2secxAC7xHKzb9OewD+NLd1rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a07ee057f742098"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FYP93eZLiivfi1pGJIktMiW963I>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:20:21 -0000

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:43 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

>
> Right, but taking it out of 7601bis would leave the problem then of what's
> the
> appropriate reference in the registry, which, more generally, is how we
> got to
> the full text replacement of 7601.  Leaving it out of 7601bis would just
> replicate the problem that the latest update was created to fix.
>

That depends on how it is done. I was proposing moving all the Sender ID
related content to an Appendix which documents it for posterity as
historical and otherwise removing all references elsewhere in the document
to Sender ID. That both obsoletes 7601 and deals with the deprecation.

--Kurt