Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Fri, 28 May 2021 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 8CBFF3A380F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.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 gBTMXgWiHeNB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 1DA3B3A380E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id e2so752796vsr.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=erLlpb97ebaE1bm3JuyZ2taN7SkUqBSkbKnzWyPD2NU=; b=Cexb1mtR3jH6+wyx3YKjbZXenV3V7ytR2l/Uja95X4uO1wOdxs5w/G3UsJAGec7SFL eB+YntUiEFcjkxVt7kCmT6D3CljbyumIYR0/bPKrmzst87knQ5QzGmGeQ4Jr6oN9EI+l LjhEi/0pppl69tgN231E5uL+Ebcu/Q04FT1Chl+Lxjn5NeBbI7Cikl22vKsPeBkUG1xT pJ8gwjzWAmVRY+NOXFaJ4j2QfEPD8nthJP7qJXDeQM5wL6iYlZHz8Ra5caxkSqq8iIfJ PWv/VPXaor8HmZEXGuCx+MLoOWtkuW4UpvG+hJrRzjMC+BrliRKU0VjOu8raSODj/4AZ Twbw==
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; bh=erLlpb97ebaE1bm3JuyZ2taN7SkUqBSkbKnzWyPD2NU=; b=fUc7cLUJQI9VIGHCEihi9p+eHr7fPO7es/7pmsPsoHXNr3Rbil6fwZ8UqiUTAjTwHD 5GOTr3tt/TQvqRjSGK5vkepztwzUumz/qBE0VQ3B4mUqS2oD1nd9yMcAj+imJliKec/Q WF2yZd68OveQZ8GTt/GP3iS+OmHWDrwerH6fDa90s/3taKnEMNL/sp/Fs2i8GdFpszUf 4QLDyeE1bappve4/bC9b5Il+wjxd/kEFRMBi66zN8u1+DuUI1FAwesA4D7mBJ1lz/7ec m73gE+x+Vivb4UxTQim3YHSSMP+nLOPQr737lHs6TX8OlmtQuQ2Q4JbzLm2QeuYRwDmn w04Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533AA6FWdOD5D+bjQq06jhg7HgYBPhUvnJ+7wFpDpnBTecewOJL4 b2GHNREcHAsuzOJv+mhl8Or4z6KNoCQpYQoNUZHgNg7F7gI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh/Wk8W1ABNRnj0+MXwFts/SlOBOrC9RQSjCj1OIt32nqG/3IX3j76JWXf7Kf6TVJPEeoJ+G+Atp/ZMSQ5HVY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:1168:: with SMTP id k8mr9146204vsg.41.1622240775675; Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+HAtjGu4Y+Nu=mhpru5UUwQFWuk_XZq=UGi1CZU-_ExKQ@mail.gmail.com> <a65d619b-5442-0d07-2188-8690b454f4f5@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <a65d619b-5442-0d07-2188-8690b454f4f5@dcrocker.net>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:26:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfMhdQgC8+seU5_3qg7ZvtcaWB3SSED+rLvEpSRKyOjNSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002cb3b605c36b5dbd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HEceWivH-0bufhQZ_QSue_i6Eow>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 22:26:23 -0000

Tim, please add a ticket for this

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 13:54 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 5/28/2021 12:10 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> So in looking at removing the "ri" tag from the document, I realized that
> the ABNF reference needed to be removed also.
> Thinking about that, I realized that when one adds a new tag to the
> registry there should be a formalized way that it is represented in the
> ABNF.   Perhaps the IANA Consideration section should also spell out that
> for new tags, the specification should also include the incorporating ABNF.
>
> +1
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorkingbbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
-- 

*Seth Blank* | VP, Product
*e:* seth@valimail.com
*p:* 415.273.8818

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.