Re: [dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 02 December 2019 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 174DD120048 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:41:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 D2PwV9JuLC7W for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB8212003E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ibphA-0000HA-A8; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:41:12 -0500
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:41:06 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C03D748895F95815D27A6A1B@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qbPJaYJvyEuRyqNQRCvbTnSvqr8Je+kTrV0wrG0wQLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <458060E1B9558124988A46B7@PSB> <f741b82b-3314-47e1-b0cf-ab491ffa14a6@www.fastmail.com> <2E5DE6BD20354824E99E564F@PSB> <84F1134E-5031-46BB-8C78-9E76FF971100@episteme.net> <A39990063436871E76405B96@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <79130263-06d5-6a63-e6c6-81b67695eb48@tana.it> <b18f3646-8733-f921-4e38-33543aef489f@gmail.com> <CABuGu1r6DVaK4uFgw_BTwpFAd3kN1G4fjPRw7JLCTAve=aRb5g@mail.gmail.com> <9dc4e992-db54-a9b9-edca-629e3285a1a7@gmail.com> <457C81343E3DB1B1D58910E4@PSB> <CABuGu1qbPJaYJvyEuRyqNQRCvbTnSvqr8Je+kTrV0wrG0wQLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GjjXiWXW_9up_88sVV9GuCLAceg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] From: rewriting, was Email standard revision
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, 02 Dec 2019 17:41:16 -0000


--On Monday, December 2, 2019 09:20 -0800 "Kurt Andersen (b)"
<kboth@drkurt.com>; wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:11 AM John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:
> 
>> 
>> --On Monday, December 2, 2019 08:29 -0800 Dave Crocker
>> <dcrocker@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> > On 12/2/2019 7:56 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>> >> There's also already RFC7960 which expands upon 5598 with
>> >> specific  reference to DMARC's impact.
>> > 
>> > ahh. thanks.
>> > 
>> > It will help to have folk comment on the IETF mailing list,
>> > so that Klensin's comments don't just get responses from me.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, 7960 does not explicitly update 5598, so that
>> relationship is difficult for anyone not heavily involved to
>> discover (that neither Dave nor I was aware of the
>> relationship is probably symptomatic).  This may eventually
>> call for an update that replaces both documents or may
>> further justify a more or less comprehensive Applicability
>> Statement for the core email protocols.
> 
> 
> In this regard I think that something like Hector's
> "practitioner's guide" (probably as a BCP rather than a
> protocol standard) would be immensely helpful and meet this
> need. Maybe we need to look for making a trilogy of docs
> rather than just a duet: *21, *22, *23 :-)

Already proposed on the IETF list and in private interactions
with the ADs.  It is probably a good sign that several of us
seem to be reaching similar conclusions.

    john