Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 AF49812023E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:54:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=3B2tgk16; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=YS14128Q
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 pZV4IpGzLpSX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 454D112008B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 57559 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2019 15:54:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e0d5.5dc98422.k1911; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=RPZq+FSASmAtGV9LgQpLX0MGdA5LcdWqbDXK2R/8ukc=; b=3B2tgk16yd6JDWEGvYFgtMF5ubvAR4O6GFSWZcrY9GiSx9yHXtVi7wLgJR68SZldCtKktfj5cmQ+Pttw0DwrN5eK5QMYKeAbEx95mj47wnNq3jyZ3hWq+7oVblS56tiOLSDl2CM6NSHtWGek9zgoPJ+0BBZVBhNRpSe+btY0nMNy+UmEfYkCam+e/dEUBSkMo4DgH3uZJ5h3Rm1vgdFgizGw/F5QxwB2SYtB1UCZdoszwxrt+buiDmmp3XHYQlYf
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e0d5.5dc98422.k1911; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=RPZq+FSASmAtGV9LgQpLX0MGdA5LcdWqbDXK2R/8ukc=; b=YS14128Q6R7JOjSRrnKUy3XgfyRTJ+b6U2WkgWBqNLeYfH3lTCyNC6zJeatWFdnr/KnpfEJxbNJMCNTvXfQ+pBQJQFsAgpWxpumty6QB8rMFT0UXW7vMwPZyMwsRl8huwrbmGfOVx1tAjDFsuQK3NNba/7KbB5EOJQWGWsS6wfr6wCDflfsPT9YxtP6uceigw1EZkF5x6K65colbtYSm+AJRPAjx9YsK+mXngt8lC+xSzb3evx0IQBJ77Kk2Vo9f
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP6; 11 Nov 2019 15:54:10 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 12A31E9E35A; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:54:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: 11 Nov 2019 10:54:09 -0500
Message-Id: <20191111155410.12A31E9E35A@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbo1AtJ6LG1UuSSoBC-GwjdQsc5CA2h6q5VqMxH=dxK5w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Fd0LLYhdsDfbIoOkm4_Bj50eyLs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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, 11 Nov 2019 15:54:14 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwbo1AtJ6LG1UuSSoBC-GwjdQsc5CA2h6q5VqMxH=dxK5w@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>Just to be clear: The policy for changes to that registry is "Expert
>Review", but since the action that put it there was a document with IETF
>consensus, I'm pretty hesitant about just approving this change based on a
>formal request.  I'd rather at least see some consensus discussion about
>it, or even better, a revision/update to RFC8601.

Hey, wait, Expert Review is supposed to be considerably looser than RFC Required.

Since there's no danger of running out of token names, I'd encourage
you to accept new ptypes if they have a clear spec and a plausible use
case.  In this instance, I think the description in the I-D is OK, but
for the use case I would like some evidence that someone, somewhere is
implementing it and doing something with the result.

R's,
John