Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 14 November 2012 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C73E21F84F9 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjP-rzlzrXK5 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445F921F8847 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so905996lbk.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4CWkU5Hwi6mginJbwKfhYzKCEnfuQpp8Xelms6QGZmI=; b=qYaBJqXGCFrPHS+eut2S1paWDJe1x2Uy2a65Tg+5MUw4XDvqusZesIlLeTqRF9HcQ0 sYZ+3bF/s0oL3JIHuRTB0k1Yrqr4C4UHfhypkJGTdeCQGe5uIh4OLP+Yduj/WiMUFML7 rMhoL6dwqTETob7NeDiwffLj0dCd5mN0g1HzhcdoS/6vfFhzTE9LOF73zUvydMbdNs6T MtzHMkszDCFP25MG3GK4N9goOsoQULCsHY6VNXbMovH9SpVhGSrcAzZWmWSRSoefl+MW YzNnTZWXTpsTjYhaoB7IrRNmFn7OmFAIK+KivkhPeYP4JRif8JeSnK8CfKvvyWfp43PP 2tUA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.54.40 with SMTP id g8mr11547268lbp.49.1352932621815; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec55555565412ae04ce7c2c52"
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:37:08 -0000

Quite right, the registry definition moved to the "media-type" document.
Updated in the working copy.

I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was
case-insensitive.  I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going
to all-lowercase would be fine too.  Please let me know if there's
convention or preference to be observed here.

I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are
also covered by the application.  Which text are you talking about with
respect to user level application?

RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in
the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the
spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.  I'd be
fine pointing at the impending PS and just waiting for it.

-MSK


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > This is a Working Group Last Call for:
> >
> >    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
> >
> >    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>
> I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
> nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
> IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
> registry is opened and no policy defined.
>
> Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.
>
> The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
> but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
> and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
> at user level.
>
> draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
> a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.
>
> -Peter
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>