IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

worley@ariadne.com Sun, 14 February 2021 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 D95343A099F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 12:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.224
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.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 kNj0F8UXDRYu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (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 31EAF3A098C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 12:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.108]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id BNhWlvsuufFsMBNlIlje54; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 20:12:56 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1613333576; bh=HioRR+VZjzJq67UHB8Ay5eBMhJPw3LlJOEF0vMsZTFo=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=Az36eIiMfUf1dQXfR/jbvk2SF9bBA4mtL3/VbIUtaFAH92lQa0DsWe3cIsPApa+3z NIaIimXjZbnETeFk+207/ky6qNN/cBFoYxCxaxN7jRljpOpK3yhRdeMr1YzZSsWt3o wU7RCOrkOgpO43pD6HnUUGmlrbk1Fz4kuQbhW1XS6R2WT6ZZkv86YdKr0hU2N4FHaQ 9WUL51QRD3USk5auf2kzHAfeFoA2tnjUZlhZr+iDJLQSDHNKaDeY9tOBwpVIP9Kq2v h5pOPIC4y45IFbXp54WUueZbAhzigzpTJMBF4KfLKRtU30etRxTSFa0dgF/hGJiyB5 +iaStRHFp3OAA==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id BNlFlrQB4o85jBNlFlvtgb; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 20:12:55 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 11EKCqL2022125; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:12:52 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 11EKCqq3022122; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:12:52 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> (superuser@gmail.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:12:52 -0500
Message-ID: <87o8gm4ddn.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rHOhle1JXXM64-pfIrE7l8eaXEQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 20:12:59 -0000

My apologies for not replying to this sooner.

To give the TL;DR, I think the proposed changes adequately address my
concerns.

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> writes:
> In the interests of getting this document on its way, I'd like to suggest
> the following edits in response to Dale's most recent message.  If the
> working group concurs, we can finally get this out to Last Call.
>
> My goal as an AD here is just to get the GenART feedback addressed, but the
> text is being submitted as a WG contribution for discussion and consensus
> consideration, not as a demand.   Please process accordingly; I believe the
> agreement is to do another WGLC on the document before it goes on its way,
> so the sooner consensus is reached on all of this, the sooner it goes.

Yes, I've noticed that people (even authors) forget that Gen-Art
reviewers do not have veto power, they are just additional commentators.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email