Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 03 November 2018 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 D408F130E1D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 20:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=jcaS9J5/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=WHifSnzt
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 EM1o-HlV58c2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 20:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7B99128A6E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 20:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1541216653; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=9O5tQTZrCXrSSMYItQ8K9mr1YhC3gbPQ5vaejHRwsgk=; b=jcaS9J5/vB0qkl9q+HHfE5xgqImvujh7Ab5EWRwptVNT5DyKdxrBKEm+ pj+xiqtL+Km91/H8Wltz7zw/BTxFCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1541216653; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=9O5tQTZrCXrSSMYItQ8K9mr1YhC3gbPQ5vaejHRwsgk=; b=WHifSnzt+x5MIBMeT6IJkRIEFF0syejAtHGDhdvGx5/jNSArMxcr5CUf tZlTkujfhJAXMHkHHsRy3tS8b/UM+av/0IBALWk2eaRLkatNurSs0IS1kf R9Xa8CE9YYoIy3yLbUaoS9E7V1DPmED4zQdAc57N2k166nxIomJ+AbMnjQ 36H1gaXPlbvbSvx5rfN9FNXsVctz0y2qOwbZxt9JDVnN0Y7f7TcguI7WOL IW9OnA45ZR9b27I72++vhPt1CwVLrQ3fnFwXrDry0ULfWYMn+Cndah+Xud g3WKOmEqAZxpx5jKDkxe97R+10oR4+TTHUdjStcAnxRg0JR9N2wEfg==
Received: from [192.168.1.146] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AF4CC400ED; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 22:44:13 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 03:44:07 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZjLzUdWH+sz=TifJEF-zQVevUHug=um9+6dUvU_5f4dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c378a@isode.com> <CAL0qLwZjLzUdWH+sz=TifJEF-zQVevUHug=um9+6dUvU_5f4dA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <4E1476B7-C994-43C4-9449-55B9771E5C84@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/p8DVTVOgGQ9i1SoDqALp_6-kbx8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt
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: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 03:44:17 -0000


On November 3, 2018 3:25:15 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>; wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:03 PM Alexey Melnikov
><alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
>wrote:
>
>> 1) I am not sure that deleted IANA registry descriptions (when
>compared
>> to RFC 7601) is the best way, considering that this document
>obsoletes
>> RFC 7601. I think it would be better to just keep the text and add a
>> sentence saying that it is unchanged from RFC 7601. But I am happy to
>> hear what IESG has to say about this.
>>
>
>Sorry, what's being deleted?  RFC7601bis doesn't (shouldn't!) be
>deleting
>anything; it adds a couple of entries and makes itself authoritative
>for
>the registration of the header field, but otherwise nothing is
>changing.  I
>thought that was pretty explicit.

What should the reference be in the registry for the existing entries?  RFC7601 will be historic, so that hardly seems right and they aren't listed in 7601bis so that doesn't work either.

Scott K