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