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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 14 January 2019 10:03 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 D6652130FB8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 02:03:49 -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=1wBsNPk1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=i9zixT4x
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 BeiJif3P4dmx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 02:03:47 -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 BD65F12896A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 02:03:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812e; t=1547460225; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=YnlFq9ZeW4KnftevfhTzpRpNgLSZwKvQ4icGXlXooa0=; b=1wBsNPk160EJ/yO6fPs+muGIcLY3/Z8eXI6Hw4FHP9HaXLZaN/grouOX wtpEfJF32J2C/ITGu2e1kHyS0MUtCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812r; t=1547460225; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=YnlFq9ZeW4KnftevfhTzpRpNgLSZwKvQ4icGXlXooa0=; b=i9zixT4xxjG9X51zLVS4NyRd8p4uygaUtxOkHe+RSnp9sVWw9Gtl1Ien S8Gh2OsVqyODjLtpYk+wejDoi5H4TUvcRrh5wVH+7e64ftbaiOq4ULyF9n gYmA9yXS2vKw5lbhUCw+j+l3awhtZ2c0saWd0eu5Q6eKbTGkP/qMrDzmmS +8ebAE4IW5B85jN75w6MiyvDSwYhd6F4CpLahkbjFqpw32aj3iKlfcczSQ 1YRA4fxfzIbpx7wZyZ0wyt+qFEtheoRXLiS1gojRaUGWm6XNdlJJKY7qQ/ Q3RBe0soNFV6tacF2LVcpSLlkaEpX1iq/3SjAHgVbjnme9XeSAOTxg==
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 3FAD62D4078E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 04:03:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 05:03:41 -0500
Message-ID: <1927558.aO5YKDjPkr@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-164-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <2272f6d5-6c80-b80d-4aff-bdcc69449cf8@tana.it>
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com> <2272f6d5-6c80-b80d-4aff-bdcc69449cf8@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aMH70w27UTbwji5lHnHi7TDDHAY>
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 10:03:50 -0000

On Monday, January 14, 2019 10:54:37 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Sun 06/Jan/2019 06:45:57 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > Here's what I've come up with.  This is a diff between RFC7601 as
> > published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the
> > DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review.  Please let me know
> > if I've missed anything.  I'll post it at the end of the coming week if
> > there are no issues raised.
> > 
> > http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601
> > .diff.html
> 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.

Scott K