IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Wed, 29 May 2019 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 4BF0E120134 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:54:37 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=OpZT7osZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=RV4KppKZ
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 sVqNHFBhCF5v for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (pop3.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27694120096 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=794; t=1559166869; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=bAFuzpD8Yl2BNJP7VmSB2Sf3Oz8=; b=OpZT7osZyH/eQA8YIBRocPYBRoOGbLHnywauh1sCRaC3FkVgYqioB830Btpmg9 bc5hMxkQNqxO8LVnZB8GX0UPbqA1DBzNK+pXBBBNxk2Fm9jZrlId/glFPlfp0Fs/ FOG5JEWC6R8W7HFD6Htdm2eIByA70FIqX+KrhPpRwLb/o=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.8) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 17:54:29 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.8) with ESMTP id 4254288835.58212.3356; Wed, 29 May 2019 17:54:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=794; t=1559166698; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=qw/E7LI M5QhAmdCN/okp3Hj6PmvwJDR+HLv9jNu8ZFg=; b=RV4KppKZBHM5A7E+Bz6ih/U LmQioEsc1rpKkFmsjbYQ0HoM9OdCZVTyYYTxMnH5SomJ+Syf7JFAA7AI9XZBlsBC eyyDpNK6chPoF/JmOHbML7FUnrV/WbEXfsIPQxBjIqePGZ1Y8Jdky9oDvzMHOwM2 Md5y4KwX53XzHFjfSRsw=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.8) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 29 May 2019 17:51:38 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.8) with ESMTP id 1531554020.9.276472; Wed, 29 May 2019 17:51:38 -0400
Message-ID: <5CEEFF97.8010104@isdg.net>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 17:54:31 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905241036450.50141@ary.qy> <c767e477-b6f8-b719-1c9d-3ed5bfddb4d7@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905291308180.71513@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905291308180.71513@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xXJZuHjR-z7h-Dcke1zwQwkGJZA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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, 29 May 2019 21:54:37 -0000

On 5/29/2019 1:13 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> You seem to be suggesting that the standards-track DMARCbis should be
>> different because an informational, non-WG RFC has already been
>> published. From a process standpoint that's bad; standards-track RFCs
>> should go through exactly the same process regardless of whether or not
>> they were previously published as Informational.
>
> As far as I can tell your proposal to break the document in two has
> gotten no support at all.  Can we stop now?

"No support at all?"   For the record, I support the "split."  But I 
won't care it is remains.  I just think it will complicate a 
specification and extend the future work of completing a DKIM Policy 
Model proposed standard which is in need of a tremendous amount of work.

-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email