Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #50 (Remove ri= tag) - With Interim Notes

Tim Wicinski <> Fri, 28 May 2021 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E493A2D7F for <>; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvwQthhxxz7P for <>; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D311E3A2D81 for <>; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j10so6072211lfb.12 for <>; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2hur1Nm7DJqymrMBjGMDhd/yNACtaypC15n72kgALHQ=; b=jeCQWPs6kxNyHcn4mWwJy8gR1vfKlYAMfdU7RCK2v729xDAHbzgcRcz6hYhWF9OGmJ Gb0RhHvzhtOji/oygFyPThAsIPelwsB0XPZo6gjPdFtEtqFlLxgKfPljGPGoYDWPiy8S hQO5uTXeRRXTopvUQ6zhTNuzRy4kGaG4GdLka5osvmgFpipzCrSYz5oA+qaTgEmvWwBB Nl+f9bQBi+BX4xXC7tZTaJPiKbk8zKOwLvewmYHzwSXwLi6ZDcD2IDBfB0GQQbuIOd4c LyTOf/Fq3g9lVVbSUVXjhB6ZAaaYvVFwHy6KHV6TF94NfekrzW4zu2OrL/BiQ74fAjoI D7xw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2hur1Nm7DJqymrMBjGMDhd/yNACtaypC15n72kgALHQ=; b=KJcM8Rzfz8v9BD3fXr82sDoxDJWnSrz/sEhqcJg7iq4twzRgJ08TbOkEQxy/VfobHR fsGmHR6v2x+GG2s5hqq+lWDeZ8m2nOUNqYyHLU4/91OEsiS6cEVhXGMet6g63tyr7864 LT/xqD4ioUWLzh6T1y30HprsptZd0IYxY4MGoe1wh3YbdpEO/0QjNzVOjCnV6bP9wLKy 9TJAfi3k65pSXhYxSztfuTHqCet+/wKp3TGHxf1xnP1e3LcBU6d/HoP1OYl5hZoHxnBA SK4m7VBucciOB6BjB5woSwGDNccbitl2KobaH0+hwKDE2Dp5fCnihmjubdI0xd224s8H S3gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533X6dq+mw3BqgE22cefwanNlWCFpnA68kQj6yfQFTwnRwXhkT+i Eb9AI1YIMFLSf1Hs9WA3IZrgHICAHaKJ3nEX4V+qWZ5WY4c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7myHaKQZ5H9wpnayHSyobGaFFuF+NjR9S/M48h6Gm0l8VsEZMbBfIvlqmquUxBIPMpKRwRAooCe3PRyza/80=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4307:: with SMTP id q7mr6310892lfa.262.1622218923155; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 12:21:51 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Todd Herr <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9a77805c36646c2"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #50 (Remove ri= tag) - With Interim Notes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 16:22:11 -0000


This is the current text in Section 10.4 of dmarc-bis

   Names of DMARC tags must be registered with IANA in this new sub-
   registry.  New entries are assigned only for values that have been
   documented in a manner that satisfies the terms of Specification
   Required, per [RFC8126].  Each registration must include the tag
   name; the specification that defines it; a brief description; and its
   status, which must be one of "current", "experimental", or
   "historic".  The Designated Expert needs to confirm that the provided
   specification adequately describes the new tag and clearly presents
   how it would be used within the DMARC context by Domain Owners and
   Mail Receivers.

I don't believe we can actually remove said tag from the IANA registry,
but we can mark them as "historic", and remove the text from the
new document.

Someone should consult with the IANA folks for specifics.
I'll volunteer to take point if so desired.


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:44 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr=> wrote:

> Greetings.
> Consensus on Ticket #50 <>
> (Remove ri= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC Interim to remove the
> tag and update the IANA registry to reflect its removal.
> I seek consensus from the working group at large on this ticket, and
> request that a decision be made by Friday, June 11. Discussions about this
> issue should be contained in this thread.
> Thank you.
> --
> *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager
> *e:*
> *m:* 703.220.4153
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
> this email and then delete it from your system.
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list