Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 22 January 2019 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 A5EB5130F4D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:14:55 -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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=xzPQLlUu; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=OXcqI9o3
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 3S1gOK-WqFjX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9185E130EB4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4566 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2019 03:14:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11d1.5c468aab.k1901; bh=HTyJIYdYontrVwQMWY07FGb7agQHG6nJeQ8BHY5obj4=; b=xzPQLlUu0KD14+dZgqHhJ4YFpF7P3uhcl1QuOPG8UWJXP52OZNhOMUuiqCP/4zdR9u3a8yVETyn/HePVb2PBCpI6tOpYn4Ld3t+SzPV0CPP221y443Y6IkZL27bL9Fc1MHg3BnlnLMprQ3EENCwO8KcuOxmlUSZBHXeDb6ywwLIKwtE25Ool5IzRLkgrxRIsb2KZfUSZelbloO1etyYhIZQiRa4HmfdZlwL61JSgBgz/aa++nyz7Pbtwa9U9hY+9
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=11d1.5c468aab.k1901; bh=HTyJIYdYontrVwQMWY07FGb7agQHG6nJeQ8BHY5obj4=; b=OXcqI9o3OoE0gr1UW8gthB5kl+rrj7ok9RwJnjbnM259/jlGFbb39QF/YLSaY74PP38bRFbZvLaOxsDLXHEh/HllubYO7+8W5Ot1wsuFJCzj7iPtu9K6QJH2eR898O3UvFMASQ7Lz2hEoqeQr+RDhRI5AEV6gIHgbJ99neXdTixZTk3uP4yqQlV+ioaHPDii/FT/UPTyTy1tVP3ewHXr5mfaZOJrinSqKiHVV8iuqzugG2MWXL9dUyKwxNLwmxOf
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 22 Jan 2019 03:14:50 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id B1B2A200D02A85; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:14:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: 21 Jan 2019 22:14:50 -0500
Message-Id: <20190122031450.B1B2A200D02A85@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbmcEVgVcJTBU26gmVGaWV4Gy0fYArY80ZcDYf=wF-UKg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Yyz-Af1wjfIoGkCJt-bKh0jOZV4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 03:14:55 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwbmcEVgVcJTBU26gmVGaWV4Gy0fYArY80ZcDYf=wF-UKg@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>happened in the deployed universe.  So now we have a registry entry for the
>"body" ptype which isn't deprecated, but possibly no live uses of it. ...

I'd leave it there, at least so nobody inadvertently reuses the ptype name.

Apropos the comment about VBR, as far as I can tell nobody uses it so
I'm not inclined to spend much effort on it, but the text in -04 is
fine.  If someone wants to put U-labels in their VBR headers, it's OK
with me.

R's,
JOhn