Re: Enough DMARC whinging

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Sat, 03 May 2014 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.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 3BDAF1A013D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 May 2014 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xTymLe8Q4DWb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 May 2014 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2281A013B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 May 2014 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.20.3] (c-50-136-244-117.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.136.244.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by v2.bluepopcorn.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id s43NZtDa012352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 3 May 2014 16:35:57 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; t=1399160157; bh=oycJbIoAueEzOGKdsmAGut93OJseugSuTN5SkEBXiHU=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=lqkwcmt+OfQGmd1UP/bmRSAECCMPRtFWNFfveV9i/0weNKGvlMVLZCZS1DRpqWCHu wHNRjkseHDbSSCTqHsuEsxHJYyvprNBAPhoQhLUx3Ubgq2TIn5jkKz/scVkwAE91AU ErLEZ/22tuEvix8jD0ZbeE7OYxIUC1T2dmNITZac=
Message-ID: <53657D5B.9010102@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 16:35:55 -0700
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.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>
In-Reply-To: <53651C59.4070801@bbiw.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Gy0Dt4fODiVkAahHtvkn_MAPXns
Cc: IETF general list <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: Sat, 03 May 2014 23:36:06 -0000

On 05/03/2014 09:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> ps. The original note was from Jim Fenton and it was him I was asking
> to explain his reference. He seemed to be making a point and I was
> asking him to provide it explicitly. 

I have been trying to avoid additional DMARC whinging on this thread
(and list), but alas...


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.

-Jim