Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 28 May 2021 20:54 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 81E8A3A3571 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=dcrocker.net
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 QRFf0zL72s4R for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fossa.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (fossa.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45AE83A356F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7C1781D9A; Fri, 28 May 2021 20:54:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (100-96-18-86.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.18.86]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 48013781CE8; Fri, 28 May 2021 20:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [185.224.136.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.96.18.86 (trex/6.2.1); Fri, 28 May 2021 20:54:13 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Plucky-Cooing: 389c70f567c8619a_1622235252959_2218292185
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1622235252958:786036693
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1622235252958
Received: from [192.168.0.111] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 0827121EAC99; Fri, 28 May 2021 20:54:08 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1622235250; bh=ziYgxugfrV87qKqBiGqtVqZ4jDNoKIcgdjpXzg0z1eI=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=siZ2p3eBNwXPqd358jMzPaLpVUH5I/ZJdoJZQuY3laqkl4vOdnU4nLLd5lYHrkQR/ 1XGkRIZVEIwMZWYi2uFvL5KrgJswp7El8GR6bKXRZuT/qlW88u9lLhhwsiTrn3m0r2 lJr+AqDyEGNPJiI1Gr6MaHAfSCyjgdJMqKdeYBcmpwhs3ablzp1Mxmo9xTGaqLa8MM DCseqTAiUiO0erF3c7idqDpxxrWVhBoKws1ja7QmPn9GBkrxnjDDyPrErEV3xm/4np e1antjlR305GY4J8zUzvFtK9/iQ8fKqjpngUsqX7D3DoCfZAVblEHa45j4XeLqCO92 2008lVWo1LScw==
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+HAtjGu4Y+Nu=mhpru5UUwQFWuk_XZq=UGi1CZU-_ExKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <a65d619b-5442-0d07-2188-8690b454f4f5@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 13:54:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+HAtjGu4Y+Nu=mhpru5UUwQFWuk_XZq=UGi1CZU-_ExKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4525A7FA9798E19AE775A559"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/miQJwJ6CStjJx6HL1wjJ8B4-RXg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF
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, 28 May 2021 20:54:21 -0000
On 5/28/2021 12:10 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > So in looking at removing the "ri" tag from the document, I realized > that the ABNF reference needed to be removed also. > Thinking about that, I realized that when one adds a new tag to the > registry there should be a formalized way that it is represented in > the ABNF. Perhaps the IANA Consideration section should also spell > out that for new tags, the specification should also include the > incorporating ABNF. > +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Tim Wicinski