IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 17 July 2014 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE3C1A01E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 CzmRn5XLJ7kE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B301A0158 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e16so2161121lan.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=v7bSHIHjoZvd/jmhLKYxFKiiIKPqMRo8eO/2jD/8BmE=; b=AAak+HiwtMaJ7cCIpDNqPIMqNjeIyRv04URUjHLe9bBUkzCoN2vINUj3fpKAQ0yOXG nEQ7SPAhl8XO5IEByPHpQKZWJ+aA2HHdhDeLcSIRnX9sPHIbl054/sCW/9lbX/mLZ+xW zDh8yPItqQM3O8CFKaMZbX1QfzSb+74yOxFgNjIFhgo6VhOezhRbvycShLKCVdOVCcFH uzMJA4yxbG1L0n5mMW8O97e7qxjIpgZrP9FWK7gq3nyQuk4cQvk6qf3+pzQXQJK6asdI pOLYiz+m0e64R6wDfERcH4TOI53qdLwy2VFH9X8hPGt9oxmOrmNbMg9Ki5lwAw4yO3Xl IbEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.202.106 with SMTP id kh10mr18169702lbc.66.1405627699310; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.104.80 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140717120908.0ddd9a80@elandnews.com>
References: <20140714164212.22974.20340.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716100922.0ceba268@resistor.net> <53C70443.8020709@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716161255.0ac7a6f0@elandnews.com> <53C71991.3040909@bbiw.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716200958.0cb6d4c8@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVB895qQam48dqpG7CX+YCxPp0-5Er8j_=NR-YexTQRtmA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717072736.0ddb14c0@elandnews.com> <CALaySJ+_R=kxdf3E94kA=+S2gHaht9vSrkPQYdREnsqdWLJGkw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717120908.0ddd9a80@elandnews.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:08:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lLFIjq0RO2-BWUBG8pDUZcNxMRk
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+ND3Z0UX_i+dTi67RWH_ESVn+LyHyLQBSBJC5dxmL6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c36a24b4387004fe693311"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6_hf8ykp1VqPTVB8DCWto9Pka0w
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:08:22 -0000

>
>
>> But other registration policies don't commit anyone to anything, and
>> an Independent Stream document creating a registry that requires IETF
>> Stream RFCs in oder to register in it... is perfectly fine.  Yes, the
>> IESG has discussed this in relation to other Independent Stream
>> documents.
>>
>
> Section 4 of RFC 5226 is about creating a registry.  My assumption would
> be that it would require some IETF action or IESG approval as it is
> committing the IETF to do some work in future.
>

I don't understand that: why does the creation of a registry commit the
IETF to do work in future?

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email