Re: Enough DMARC whinging
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 05 May 2014 15:20 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 AA3611A0397 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 08:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 0zFnH7mwKeyt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 08:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7928F1A037A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 08:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s45FJqnE026864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 May 2014 08:19:55 -0700
Message-ID: <5367AC16.6070705@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 08:19:50 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Subject: Re: Enough DMARC whinging
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU0i1Ppc-nMeWL-ipms4E4b0wpsSRZdLG+2YhujPgH-ZPQ@mail.gmail.c om> <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU3scwm=j2BJ6jq4k5zRQPkXOVOR1UscQqZZ8tG5HEZTwQ@mail.gmail.c om> <536113B1.5070309@bbiw.net> <CAMm+LwiXoW3p5uCmML4kAWXnbrrAnSCK9x5U2qeHJdVgR2r_Gg@mail.gmail.com> <E3A7C677B18263C8DF6DD316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5362943D.2020907@bluepopcorn.net> <536295E5.3080502@dcrocker.net> <5362B4C6.10904@meetinghouse.net> <20140501215106.D05031512788@rock.dv.isc.org> <53651C59.4070801@bbiw.net> <53657D5B.9010102@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <53657D5B.9010102@bluepopcorn.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 05 May 2014 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6c6DqPN224DMExOTFdaxJS_U58w
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Mon, 05 May 2014 15:20:03 -0000
On 5/3/2014 4:35 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > On 05/01/2014 11:43 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 5/1/2014 1:36 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >>> I'd like to understand the relationship of RFC 4846, which is >>> Informational, with RFC 5792/BCP 92 here. The latter gives IESG 5 >>> options for review of independent submissions for conflicts with the >>> IETF standards process, such as: >>> >>> 5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol >>> in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be >>> published without IETF review and IESG approval. >> Since DMARC does not extend any existing IETF protocol, how is that >> reference useful here? > > I was citing one of the five options IESG has. For brevity I chose not > to cite all five (everyone can find them in RFC 5742, not 5792 which was > a typo). > > But since you bring it up, DMARC does alter (extend) SMTP, for example > by its recommendation in Section 10.1 that messages containing a single > RFC5322.From with multiple entities be rejected. It might be argued > that's not a significant limitation, but that's what the IETF review is > all about. This confuses advice about policies for /use/ of a protocol, versus /specification/ of the protocol itself. "Extending" means modifying the protocol. Changing the bits over the wire; changing semantics of the bits. Bits over the wire is the usual IETF definition of 'protocol'. The SMTP specification makes no attempt to give comprehensive guidance about receiver policies for rejecting or accepting mail. Nor should it. The DMARC draft does not alter the bits over the wire. John Levine's example of DMARC defining additional response codes is somewhat more interesting, though I'd still class it as pretty minor, since its not changing any major reply values. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Mitch Rodrigues
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging John C Klensin
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging John Levine
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Jim Fenton
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Hector Santos
- Commenting on/ reviewing Independent Submissions … John C Klensin
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Mark Andrews
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Hector Santos
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Doug Barton
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging t.p.
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Not Enough DMARC whinging John Levine
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Jim Fenton
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Cridland
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Cridland
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
- Large market player S Moonesamy
- Re: Large market player Abdussalam Baryun