Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 31 October 2018 18:04 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 EE1E1129C6A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=7a/IEJoM; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=exEX/w16
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 dbWSDAgpbRwF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 849301271FF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68602 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2018 18:04:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10bf5.5bd9eec3.k1810; bh=mxjUpYF0HhU52gFoKt+csrckB4kcsOPaXDHt/mxugyE=; b=7a/IEJoMBWmfYIVObcWzTBKoGnezJr0gyJTsWoLKytRa9Owm4OzjIspLQDkqo9QDbukGovvU4r1PLzSUw/ApQm1g7h8wFtnw3C5Lzrm7Vea8SVZ37sfZKfcagt7LN9qESCs5sUtNt32dR1FpxeUTTaL5/ksWIv/F2RKaCCfo8SWonuCmb/5hwMxi2F+T3wCG40fPhrVFTq5pXyUl/toGI+pu7rSI/l1Ss9eHuStBK/dRk9CpBUNh8WryMTCwvfsS
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10bf5.5bd9eec3.k1810; bh=mxjUpYF0HhU52gFoKt+csrckB4kcsOPaXDHt/mxugyE=; b=exEX/w160yoJs8chxdJR7eCpitZj1AWRJYFd6dEzWUU1PQLiZh4IW3IEoKXLQpGAqQhl1yKRaII3Hepvdi5bMbAakpBqSeyWPfWB2d2uVQTiITY5yAFZgMgIRkQEWkr4xaQ1xcvqbCdmkd2YgpaMjvp4ZJptKoMV3xRU1TMNbEPAgj6ktbPmNfVC6lB2yJIlXDhIE8Y0Omdd6hc8u3m86bPPtT9SbipXGamOTLIdRhUIk2d0SckjtzbdNYeAmKjZ
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 31 Oct 2018 18:04:50 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7BCB32007D4B6C; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:04:50 -0400
Message-Id: <20181031180450.7BCB32007D4B6C@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <82509274-BC89-495B-BD94-6D1F7846D8CA@kitterman.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/o_pY1L4amBUXN8p0Z5skrArb4MA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:04:54 -0000

In article <82509274-BC89-495B-BD94-6D1F7846D8CA@kitterman.com> you write:
>Is this milestone really done?  The protocol document references draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which
>isn't done yet.  Doesn't it need to be done too before this gets checked off (there is no separate
>milestone for multi).

I gather there are practical issues: we don't see any way to do
algorithm rotation in a way that is backward compatible with existing
implemntations, and we'd like to publish something that matches the
running code.

R's,
John