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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 30 November 2018 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 68AAD131001; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:54:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 tDfy-tNHYExG; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f171.google.com (mail-it1-f171.google.com [209.85.166.171]) (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 66745130E8F; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f171.google.com with SMTP id i145so501109ita.4; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:54:16 -0800 (PST)
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=2jNVfU9vTcAzUexa0lfYzqMyc9QeMx+0gGo1G7Ygg7A=; b=q9qBIbFzvbWqy0txN0uX33cv8N1p/4IahTjDM3od9e7HtrCsseJPWs1AIiY4QIOhrF mw3LgKlIn7iOfNC0OtrXLxjvqU9un9DkqytNSR0+gjZEIv6Kj2ItSfKVnGmasA/wzmAV arynAyUe/MRdeKLVjYLzhWT17lm2j2TxqPO/CnQKZLEYmXtwjBVOBM9T9Ay23Kftr0w9 oEu7OFDBhqftjdeXfjrwBhsY6SqDyuJb+akuzLD69WDaJOLTexE29AMyV6KCCCzkRUo3 ozsiPn7Q0bCX6ntWEfWeegHFxz9X6YCPcN4yaQns35tQIe4KnEI8SS0ObMhOWHGKe+r3 Nk2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbWe3g2U3dZhDp8hwJABzk44Lxv+G5+Uj4kEtB4NQSWhvXZgoQ3 QUyMiygnHd2w56K42VVhQmA6QepmIkmYVaFTOzU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Xe36rQ/in0JT0Q3dEAvbReQH9nC16PbQ+yJef7bEUFd3kCfb5CmeusWaZxX1EKXulbrt+4y5FEPrBBfhHSkW4=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:a49:: with SMTP id 70-v6mr310813itw.122.1543611255232; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:54:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJ_d96SuGEQ=n9nqM=foBO3jVPTqimeojVsEHUHC7kLiw@mail.gmail.com> <1543604417.3723984.1594680736.00216E5A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <1543604417.3723984.1594680736.00216E5A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:54:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, dmarc@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZoWP-4afgzeVGS2-_0PRHUnEEo8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell'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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:54:19 -0000

Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection that
says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
document, RFC 7601:", or some such), and then let's have a quick
working group review of the result?  (And, of course, change it back
to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".)

As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any
approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move forward.

Thanks,
Barry
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
> > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
> > put in the registries before.  But the working group decided to do it
> > the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs (and, so,
> > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of stuff, so I decided to
> > let it go.  I'll let the IESG sort this one out, but I'll go on record
> > as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.
>
> I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document is self contained and there is no need for readers to see obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.
>
> If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
> > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern about this being
> > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full replacement. I'm
> > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be resolved before
> > > publication.
> > >
> > > The current structure will make it very difficult for readers to figure out
> > > which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think it needs to either go
> > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just talk about the
> > > changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA considerations in
> > > 7601 will need to be copied forward.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly avoiding unnecessary
> > > changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than they are for bis
> > > drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic changes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Barry
> > --
> > Barry Leiba  (barryleiba@computer.org)
> > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
> >