IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 5DA6A12870E; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 umcHyY_7FLQW; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (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 A97C81277D2; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id v5so3374108lfe.7; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rbpmGYlEjVkj+H5VQ20vBhL0HMdJCwW7keTbuSNIUOY=; b=mwVSdRicoghWeazSpOig8iP2ox7U7GFj/uRSO8eG/HkkO5Bh0UPPP3B8s0hQkh+Axx Zexo0DR4uIrpvS4FJ/ljReD4v21sJ4N+CiJwH4wT0O+GeImExIKcXu+abnMPmmLFC5rB St5wf8bZ6Ek58+QC6lQ1+hsNqaRfQzFXcnIwgu2A68H95yq2bns6oPc8mgdqMZCUJCkp zZq3fWPFKsz3OHtZpDl9VIZXQ/liCoPaGVtjd8BRpOoPFEHbhgL902RzFAk4DpZ8Hi0v aU1seEqaSFlEhYQDdFQSnYWUmPZXkmPgDsa7v7rrMB1b315xgigypKdtz1lpRY+hOTDS LeBg==
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=rbpmGYlEjVkj+H5VQ20vBhL0HMdJCwW7keTbuSNIUOY=; b=K59ebCrGufdiHnX1BzuAkgQKjW46nYZUBjXEFCt8XEKr+jiPW/BzwQSyN9+kpUA0F5 Q2jbELp4vmkUOitdvR2T5naRWrOLbSQruQY8uyLi8PcboWDNUXX7dz9BuERBVC4BbvgN rRgujM2tHBxr7z7orp/r1FQhHNM+p5Ls9rLzroZprZhxyQ3rA4WJhWKIuzSJs6CH3EfN MrrOd2vmwkdzZJwNNfpUu50466zkrIVxT9vgX4sbZmSjx5J94XnCgYt4JK9eklHgGsjU Q6w3uiu0aiV54g0fXpzKQODKu9T4mZ3SaRZWCCkFsm1dWUUevqsCbe1WhBZo1TV2OBqe +TRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJw73/Se1xUg53V6561FF7jVEaMo+iHbtdzyiaeUYD4jK0eVdm1 HOBREkFmNGY/NL6oAYtZjDmFdKsdE78dEc6e9Fo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dAxc5l0Fs4yAQzoJ71FI1/9pefFFkkxsmOJ85r0kaY4p4tlpBdzEW21EO3jLcR1y9Zp3+oZ42uSDsd9RlX+x8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c014:: with SMTP id q20mr2968224lff.16.1542790457693; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154273337967.18363.3557179370600723342.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154273337967.18363.3557179370600723342.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbE+PazPFUoK7fqVVUZ19rMEUW==7Q624NvEH60sdOdpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000319a97057b28e5bd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ndumbt4Fj_wa1eTgeq6JQZbgnG0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:54:24 -0000

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:03 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't understand why this document is tagged as an Update to RFC7601 and
> not
> as Obsoleting it.  This change was made between the -03 (which was the one
> in
> the IETF LC) and the -04 (current) versions.
>

There are some things in this document that are not copied from RFC7601,
which means obsoleting RFC7601 rather than updating it would leave various
IANA registry entries pointing at a dead document.

I note that this point was brought up during both the AD Review [1] and the
> IETF LC [2], which is why I'm not balloting DISCUSS.  However, I think
> that the
> solution (Updating instead of Obsoleting) is not the correct one.
>

The change to "Updates" rather than "Obsoletes" was done as a result of
those same review comments, most notably the second citation you offered.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email