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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 30 November 2018 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 96029131008 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 p02H7O_YdweC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AB2C131007 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.24] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wAUL2Wj1000950 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:02:39 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.24]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <A85A2D6F-3B8A-48F3-B3BB-72E22921E308@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0AB11BE-DF15-4D3E-A763-8B5AE7B6DC2F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:02:31 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+5NFakd37XtPpCQqLavQeT__U62gbNiDCCtzu0XrVVpA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Tim Draegen <tim@dmarcian.com>, dmarc@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/x2rAH_JslfJTE8Wq3mxc6B0PlM0>
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:02:44 -0000

In case it’s not obvious, that would be sufficient for me to clear.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Nov 30, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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), 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.
> 
> 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/
>>>