IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 14 March 2024 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 9042CC14F6BD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.858
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.858 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="Wyg0yDx0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="j5ZrQMaW"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TYa3amdifPC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14A3C14F6B0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9124 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2024 17:20:07 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=23a165f331c7.k2403; bh=pSoSQdt8CdbdY/2sim9RtnkFDiMclA6I8hgg6NqKhuI=; b=Wyg0yDx0Qw7YtB3UBJwcrfms4J+1t0eD1ohpGEW8+C6tNN3WSJfk5NW9NuAO5G8AdPKsogh+4pFSvqyU/0MrnJgpYuCmyLFERFwsok80xN31mmyb3zc6txR2LntQLusYB2qvekY1fk3cPuqWTWcIfmFfJl28T7ThLZ0uRn6B8hckokXWq+mA5S77bsWnhJXQ449YrDhUYCP32q1eTejq3YPCmQY/31f/kd+rvHaaN6PGxk6WpzeffnQawL82yEejhr0cirDTvRlbH3QE/9cpJK3J9ZN2gfhHCyCcXufc9EIJJtIgmsYGnFJ31SA1wYJkW0a8tTO5wrEuxZiy9a6V6g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=23a165f331c7.k2403; bh=pSoSQdt8CdbdY/2sim9RtnkFDiMclA6I8hgg6NqKhuI=; b=j5ZrQMaWyogCcEhgZRuuhfLyTB8PIa/Rz3/sEVXmzOyPW3TNFJuV8NrB6AXwzkB9GmEFvk9kkNtqwPeg+NMd1cn0WeInN6MVSjL7qZixMBM/FVDDfhT47oEVgZ5JS/x1NWeH0gB1uRYj5WCfPGYcHGUpmWwTYXKCx5Fd0wac2EssxaQNlLyEfL/iHhIPfdDhxqff8TV5tTA4nYby2MocxWs7gmQuxmF6PL8B8mWruDyGYl0eSvqZSCYLx1rMcUKlImqlyel+2gx9iHUydvSRwFJuDxXIOm/9YIaerZhylMKcGHxqSOpS8kIc7b55tsetfZhONrUOFLLmvP54lc4gig==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 14 Mar 2024 17:20:07 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 220F8855BCCA; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:20:06 -0400
Message-Id: <20240314172007.220F8855BCCA@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: todd.herr@valimail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8ndZuwM1ve3hhFvW5oFYFLj7mfxXJ0GFLQaPRBF4etHOA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/nUTN-IYu4z-5fPxZszsx058SnFg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 134 - What To Do With Appendix A.5?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:20:15 -0000

It appears that Todd Herr  <todd.herr@valimail.com> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Colleagues,
>
>Two people have spoken up on list asking for removal of this section
>(thread subject is "A.5 Issues with ADSP in Operation") while one person
>has registered opposition to the idea. I don't believe this is anywhere
>close to critical mass for consensus.

As an author of the ADSP RFC, I enthusiastically support dropping it
into the memory hole. It was a bad idea then and time has not improved
it.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email