[dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 20 November 2018 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2A1130E52; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:09:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, tim@dmarcian.com, dmarc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:09:00 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MDUwf9iWoeW4PlJTTOPjJcs7jn0>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 20 Nov 2018 23:09:06 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern about this being
marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full replacement. I'm
promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be resolved before

The current structure will make it very difficult for readers to figure out
which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think it needs to either go
back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just talk about the
changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA considerations in
7601 will need to be copied forward.


I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly avoiding unnecessary
changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than they are for bis
drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic changes.