[dmarc-ietf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 02:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, tim@dmarcian.com, dmarc@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154276854434.29845.2318681395241682940.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:49:04 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lwrNPr6Em7JXGMBtD14KUM6q0iU>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks to everyone for the work that went into this revision.

I agree with Ben's DISCUSS. In particular, I'm concerned by the text in §6.4,
which indicates that the IANA registry will continue to point at RFC 7410 while
the actual *meaning* of those values will mean something different than RFC 7410
defines. At a minimum, I think this document needs to add itself to the IANA
table for those entries.

But I think the cleanest approach -- and the one that is most consistent with
the predecessor documents to this one -- is to copy the IANA entries forward
with an indication that the values are already registered, but should be updated
to point to this document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RFC 7208 is referred to by both [SPF] and [RFC7208], while only appearing as
[SPF] in the references section. Consider rationalizing this.

I recognize that the title was copied directly from RFC 7601, but please
consider revising it to indicate that this document pertains to email.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1.5.1:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

Please consider updating to match the boilerplate in RFC 8174.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have otherwise reviewed the diffs from RFC 7601, and find nothing to comment
on. I echo Ben's comments thanking you for making limited changes to the
document.

[dmarc-ietf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Adam Roach