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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 06 January 2019 05:46 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 11021131007; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:46:15 -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 6tvoKL3RqSC0; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:46:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 B91A0131002; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id v15-v6so35530962ljh.13; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:46:11 -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=WSWLdDUasSM8dhnkE8o3OzybLfPSBfrfy8I+6fKi6uE=; b=ptNz1eA14mPcx25+eECYVzuq5keP8oZw70fOfIA1MCG2Bz1OKPKvJM9JYd6SwKDO0c k/hfZQ70R6yB965ytPgPOAfcAyEpMnOk0RzT19AUhnUbymQ5zRmYdrSHg6XZcHIuMxe/ o5qi50Oa+MdZN4/ZGxDrZLhQ64kRSJmh3OKDlZS8dAFHXzNjMbociG2uXf7arUFdnCvG PlZChbL0eBzIjWVLMV8kQqJNkbZbL/qJ3YbtYPEgCnScxGYb8vpwZKNwUdotANcJ2frQ jogEO/J0y8EIjSwo5usIDpRRwPr6tX/KkYo7Z0jtKXiYtOjJDNhuObqJcIdQUr9N6+Op v1Dw==
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=WSWLdDUasSM8dhnkE8o3OzybLfPSBfrfy8I+6fKi6uE=; b=KZ5aFYTRjBTgmkYX9U62D2aPfYWdeqbuM4qG/oawvhUxwYvO6jmfORrvCuVsp61jT/ gbdzFREV5ad+rDX01tfxyCS+9boNYjQOIo5qsO3h+9mAchN2oi8apIiuy59M1P8tiO4i xyEomIa56jaRUngn6QbUGO/mw7KJmPJXknmq4z9Qyo+CSbgk6hLiJnT826ySDgIS8uAB j7sWsQ00PKYvIqhgnumf+AbBAyupXhNHRTt1AWhfuwBhKP23dcZQXtTMHHNLWUy90YBG QjILLVrt4jKO+s0h0SNERtPx4qhXW6gDwPS3nw15ohrcIfkRL2OlFurZftqIhuRWg1Du sXZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcQigVUgltbkFMqfctjz4QAEhxFh3i2N4TC/1eUOcqRn9Aqkbzw RYnX9w3TeulSiaSpknrEI3XWzVWTSK18v5ROmUWTPIsM
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5INNhoVFd5Yvo9wr+8zOYGm5AuQ75QSvQ9+jPKNVE5IySOupSYzYjUGM9V6RnSQMSIUblAM0hGtAIi4QEkokY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a202:: with SMTP id h2-v6mr31303313ljm.72.1546753569426; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 21:46:09 -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> <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com> <1543613485.3765543.1594837224.1E64FAB8@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <1543613485.3765543.1594837224.1E64FAB8@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:45:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f91d7057ec3a190"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hKs-I07bhWRvDw4iSmaQiCboqm8>
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 05:46:15 -0000

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

-MSK

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > 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
>
> Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged from RFC
> 7601:".
>
> >), 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.
>
> I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue for
> the final document.
>
> > 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/
> > > >
>