Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Tue, 15 January 2019 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 0CDD2130E6B; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:50:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=u/caPnfk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=i8z6cIAp
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 xNUoSPV6Ofk4; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43201130ECE; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B3F2627D; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:50:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:50:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:subject:references:in-reply-to:date; s=fm2; bh=/4s Ov4Q4LvHuDbu96D6Jj6zlHavkAUf0FWsBMKcxrP0=; b=u/caPnfkJoP5y9V1HPn XQ+5X/MzDqXRxVKBUPQvTtKtz2xiQsXdyk/n2XvfrSTk67jo2FuWSOgHceDG2ft5 mkeWI1Pg2LF0XcYs9OFr0+CrUUyVWJSV/Yf+VEhPp5KSl1QEft4BlDbTrl0oZePs D6l1vDtybUHbZqqEmImwJ8sqFAt8m1ixudI0ZdR7VEng99W+rHTvYYNLlXUP31oM Nka4HoPZhPUNNDkHHMx8TILZnwSIXc6wYSO+/5A2XBxKPGdVxr5RineamFRlc4yE iUy2jTt67eUKXs3PrVhih4SqYB6eintUjNUp13PnMgY6tvb1bMT/eyE4N8nyAyQi Gmw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/4sOv4Q4LvHuDbu96D6Jj6zlHavkAUf0FWsBMKcxr P0=; b=i8z6cIAprF8le/W+Khno6jp898rWL/2GYAMA3bRyPuQ5RnIWHqY3Ol8lE xFEHSkc0po+KmXvMWe6q6I2k4mmgv8VAHfanHwg9meq3dK/qlKgc6uv+LUX6K23f hoLcQAj1hWoIQA9TydAXA+WM6IOh3sAOVO3HBHwD91O0hbu3zFqIzXcNLYREFwZ/ je03QMKqxWO9hbue85yxezkKETB+8vJrxwIvtboh0HB7CPeT2IlR8qIo0xvpxZVJ 3UG6ORwmYuF4Q82dVYJ2DmltTjbW6Svb6rqTgpzHZNKhhXsMsm/I7UmRZ53Zv63W 70ZSPCsRan3cmJVILUIKGK/ukd7Jg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:VQE-XFP6N1nKH6RKCcl6wu_LT0B65hudVR_hI3GYLSCpndin01jgfQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrgeefgdejlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedt tdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepkffhvfgggfgtof fufhgjffesrgejreerredtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlvgigvgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhcu oegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpegslh grtghkohhpshdrohhrghdpihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhinhhtvghrnhgvthhmvghsshgrghhi nhhgthgvtghhnhholhhoghihrdhorhhgnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrg hmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:VQE-XGZE0aMFEGafN0RwcdIWuNJzwtA_2YZJl6awtgQX9uxMc1AIOw> <xmx:VQE-XG5zZXVthO_uLRWjWDgHQhpbS0JIba58KVBJQQVe1MsTlr0vtA> <xmx:VQE-XNAPxPkQIIuHb0wcoiJybfSTtDUulC__gH1AmncdrAq07cfJaA> <xmx:VQE-XCMnWKkWJ19ofhmZL9Stfcjl_4cxl426oBw70lBtxahSnsLUzw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id D15FA9E564; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:50:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1547567444.782708.1635254408.43FDC547@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_15475674447827080"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-36e4bfd3
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJ_d96SuGEQ=n9nqM=foBO3jVPTqimeojVsEHUHC7kLiw@mail.gmail.com> <1543604417.3723984.1594680736.00216E5A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com> <1543613485.3765543.1594837224.1E64FAB8@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAL0qLwbhjz+SRtjTqVht32z-y8XxzVikvRDo2D=ZZKcoTNiL3w@mail.gmail.com> <0E1DBF74-4F2E-4BC4-BA40-D17E51A76EEA@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E1DBF74-4F2E-4BC4-BA40-D17E51A76EEA@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:50:44 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/s6gOZ55yK-xdRetVpjA5vQOPuvE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:50:51 -0000

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 3:51 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Am I correct to assume the header and boilerplate changes are just
> artifacts of this being a temporary “draft-kucherawy...” draft rather
> than an actual revision to rfc7601bis?I believe so.
> 
> Otherwise, this would address my DISCUSS.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
>> <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:>> 
>> Here's what I've come up with.  This is a diff between RFC7601 as
>> published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the
>> DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review.  Please let me
>> know if I've missed anything.  I'll post it at the end of the coming
>> week if there are no issues raised.>> 
>> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.html>> 
>> -MSK
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov
>> <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>  > Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
>>>  > sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
>>>  > appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection
>>>  > that>>>  > says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
>>>  > document, RFC 7601:", or some such
>>> 
>>>  Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged
>>>  from RFC 7601:".>>> 
>>>  >), and then let's have a quick
>>>  > working group review of the result?  (And, of course, change it
>>>  > back>>>  > to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".)
>>>  > 
>>>  > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any>>>  > approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move
>>>  > forward.>>> 
>>>  I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important
>>>  issue for the final document.>>> 
>>>  > Thanks,
>>>  > Barry
>>>  > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov
>>>  > <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:>>>  > >
>>>  > > Hi all,
>>>  > >
>>>  > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>  > > > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to
>>>  > > > go back to>>>  > > > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of
>>>  > > > what was>>>  > > > put in the registries before.  But the working group decided
>>>  > > > to do it>>>  > > > the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs
>>>  > > > (and, so,>>>  > > > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of stuff, so I
>>>  > > > decided to>>>  > > > let it go.  I'll let the IESG sort this one out, but I'll go
>>>  > > > on record>>>  > > > as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.
>>>  > >
>>>  > > I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of
>>>  > > dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document
>>>  > > is self contained and there is no need for readers to see
>>>  > > obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.>>>  > >
>>>  > > If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs
>>>  > > editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.>>>  > >
>>>  > > Best Regards,
>>>  > > Alexey
>>>  > >
>>>  > > > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > > Barry
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell
>>>  > > > <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for>>>  > > > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
>>>  > > > > reply to all>>>  > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
>>>  > > > > to cut this>>>  > > > > introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > Please refer to
>>>  > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>>>  > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
>>>  > > > > positions.>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be
>>>  > > > > found here:>>>  > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  > > > > ----------->>>  > > > > DISCUSS:
>>>  > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  > > > > ----------->>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern
>>>  > > > > about this being>>>  > > > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full
>>>  > > > > replacement. I'm>>>  > > > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be
>>>  > > > > resolved before>>>  > > > > publication.
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > The current structure will make it very difficult for
>>>  > > > > readers to figure out>>>  > > > > which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think
>>>  > > > > it needs to either go>>>  > > > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just
>>>  > > > > talk about the>>>  > > > > changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA
>>>  > > > > considerations in>>>  > > > > 7601 will need to be copied forward.
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  > > > > ----------->>>  > > > > COMMENT:
>>>  > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  > > > > ----------->>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly
>>>  > > > > avoiding unnecessary>>>  > > > > changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than
>>>  > > > > they are for bis>>>  > > > > drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic
>>>  > > > > changes.>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > > --
>>>  > > > Barry
>>>  > > > --
>>>  > > > Barry Leiba  (barryleiba@computer.org)
>>>  > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
>>>  > > >
> Email had 1 attachment:


>  * signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)