Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...
Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 14 January 2019 18:33 UTC
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 B0A11131203 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=cWryh/cF; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=oh6CxlOA
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 2qVA5ZxtkZu5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softlayer.kitterman.com (softlayer.kitterman.com [169.62.11.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF16131201 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:33:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812e; t=1547490777; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=nyABqZJsTqvDdUP/Ky6DrLiyzaOQe8exgI66Ps0qq4U=; b=cWryh/cF0/R/ZxWJLlq0Sdjic/nZzwcphxdUdR50Km51oxp81mxLy8pY xjvg6G1wD8BgQvIO03Ux3cwrZq41DQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812r; t=1547490777; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=nyABqZJsTqvDdUP/Ky6DrLiyzaOQe8exgI66Ps0qq4U=; b=oh6CxlOAtMi7+rHzkAp7q+QJbCoAbfDn5vrxzZCOiwi6uru7yudvurmx peiTXORZu6gG5oDazgFQXlL4lEDc8v1m7WlG3jug5P+469J4MTmS5y4MTG Nm/7eKaKdSx6kjxX23/BsipU37uORTNU2IKZB0Q7T1mBCadNA+rIel33Jw YH2ggFaqi38cbAJRFqsK4WuCHcCjbGgwHka1MAB8mcPePn0yS0+HM/9p1A BBAeg6ox/7Q6k9UwDBfco/fKJZVeu7KmBN/QMyAu5cOmLRy9fEA/d1GY+F PEjQoB+wmk86RsGGgmEN47Xii+zWlVSSsImg61MksU53EP7Nzaeuyg==
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by softlayer.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 064782D408C5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:32:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:32:56 -0500
Message-ID: <3900818.4E7hUKDgJz@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-164-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pd=UGc5K6rkdNMnEVYwSO9-+b304PnrzsSAU-CY9BMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9223F7C0-4412-4123-9DBA-7E0BDC822C32@kitterman.com> <CABuGu1pd=UGc5K6rkdNMnEVYwSO9-+b304PnrzsSAU-CY9BMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UlleHzXvnkJr-27Nl_xtOHmDIYM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...
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, 14 Jan 2019 18:33:04 -0000
On Monday, January 14, 2019 10:06:02 AM Kurt Andersen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> > > wrote: > > On January 14, 2019 3:02:01 PM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> > > > > wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 AM Murray S. Kucherawy > > ><superuser@gmail.com> > > > > > >wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:03 AM Scott Kitterman > > > > > ><sklist@kitterman.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > I see sender-id still has full citizenship. Now I'm not clear > > > > > >which > > > > > >>> will be > > >>> > > >>> > first, but my feeling is that rfc7601bis and > > >>> > status-change-change-sender-id-to-historic are going to be > > > > > >published > > > > > >>> more or > > >>> > > >>> > less at the same time. > > >>> > > > >>> > When a method is moved to historic, are the corresponding > > > > > >parameters in > > > > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > IANA registry moved to deprecated? If yes, should the move be > > > > > >stated by > > > > > >>> > which document? > > >>> > > >>> A quick look at Domainkeys in the registry and RFC 7601 will answer > > > > > >that > > > > > >>> question for you. Let's not hold this up. > > >> > > >> +1. This was not identified in IESG Review as something that needs > > > > > >fixing > > > > > >> so I'd just as soon not make more changes now. If we keep changing > > > > > >it, > > > > > >> it's going to need another cycle through the working group. > > > > > >I had flagged the lack of deprecating Sender ID in my notes to Murray. > > >Since he did not comment back on that, I had assumed he was good with > > >ripping it all out (or marking it as obsolete). > > > > The registry update policy is expert review. We won't need another RFC to > > deprecate Sender ID when the time comes. > > Understood, but I was thinking that cutting Sender ID mostly out of 7601bis > would be appropriate. So far we have not removed any registry entries, only marked them deprecated (domainkeys for example). I don't think there's any particular rush to start now. Scott K
- [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, … Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-… Scott Kitterman