IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 14 January 2019 14:16 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 4A3B8131068 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:16:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 l4nUdNJ-L1ic for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 B281D13102D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c19-v6so19147655lja.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:16:30 -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=PtK1TJ63qMiLwIP0rnkMObGGHlT74pGtkHKqHixZ0CQ=; b=MqPqNcNOTQqgvBAQauzEb+0p+DSjcl5w/wGbli8uCOI3ikck/qxC7/y3+V75zmwGQI +vNvpR7t41+KjrTyaDFtKfcUZCe9WWhk4FEsseeIjxMIs+LyC9t0ybr/bnd5woqeeNMX L6Rv6ROURfcNUR6nrSDLl7VMosWDEtQ+lcDFQ1DeHDlCiUsOoQkxdeqIu1RTlFNT+uEm mp0OyNmOIZB9kudbFlwdubaHasHaBrtn3qQLGp3tVV3lH2D6RqgmrVtCU2ipvQcsPkoA iKUMz83P9hPp9c+zK8pRyXLpJnnttZDZrHkXbJXi6UajAGfrr7R2Dof7q8YlPIym9SUw spCg==
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=PtK1TJ63qMiLwIP0rnkMObGGHlT74pGtkHKqHixZ0CQ=; b=dBF4FwIPefxuXTAJD75iWub4HlgmhV1baC1xUVNbV9MQ2hVDiytMMzB0WEwfk50+RN Dp9e75NcsI3MnwcmwzfOId2FZlRzh2+m8sQIjI6ymR0HXvfdEFi9Ev+4gLlK6CCv0hLY 18QZaTVxOusZKbo8B1lKZlqNND3qE6rz31CO6VIoYOl7j6dtBYsvud57hFu+lG5fjjfC 6fkje6BmZmRgEiOpT55t+MR+LavqO6sYzWdIg6W1+bv7Ybx2QYLlQsiDOIvo47iVAwQH kRDpzbVO/uvqr/7qLkD8jHxVPd8YsVzsYVpJ7kfesHSm+SodFZmnfMkKwSjRC3Y5EvXK CmOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfvS9xLxPUQiP46H2vW1AY6oj8pnCK8r+IFTSfFZ1GgAYo5Du+e eEwAjzeeoUohd3qLoZN9d3qw5hVYgFNEwr9zPh8v8w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7geap3k5erwYR/LSU8+W29pLgOLFLfnAWARghH3J5zhmZEx394pVBABsmsEes3bDlx5YKWjFIP9auhqkye60E=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1603:: with SMTP id w3-v6mr14712460ljd.33.1547475388571; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:16:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com> <2272f6d5-6c80-b80d-4aff-bdcc69449cf8@tana.it> <1927558.aO5YKDjPkr@kitterma-e6430>
In-Reply-To: <1927558.aO5YKDjPkr@kitterma-e6430>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:16:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYpExvrBh2tRUoFNRqkUBefqr2S-F5jh6xVR=fyRTjhBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5a985057f6bb091"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Wk2EITIYp1vgY6IDDwpAS4qQBJ8>
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 14:16:32 -0000

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.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email