Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 26 October 2018 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A49612870E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 10:18:42 -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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=l6QX+6Uu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=krg2gZQE
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 JI1gzyqDmDnD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 10:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB011277CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 10:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1540574317; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=wJLxDwoUOr/d8hSzrtdHYA+TVj66g8f97hiKGG5pWfA=; b=l6QX+6Uu/EvKEkkoNq5ZJwNPCuBtBD8PVTnMFEhKHh3CTva8lrrLVzxt lubwmE6er7BddCZ06jhnEo25W2qCCw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1540574317; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=wJLxDwoUOr/d8hSzrtdHYA+TVj66g8f97hiKGG5pWfA=; b=krg2gZQExuU7h+VBSCmtWENJ1sJmgffThZt45nbnmpKC2NbIpmJp4eZ/ 54DNxe33J8qtbcALO2+v6X4pQ9tUSNaD7MQbytOb7dGDhVYvb7JeEj3Iby yEFrWe510KTaLqLjOiX37f07RTZJS1T6mzwnebZkB1r8S3U5eBNvOqT8DF Sxdp/4FadyJlELF7ApzmmjcRyaRx93tZ7hhpvUa6VQnl7IMH2R/CEzCCBZ wg6yW81ewL8eNLTS6Xd53MkVvjGZ0uMVkNI2SIGdxeeDBVrTNTUCuNYsoJ Y3hLPrFZpz1NnBJToyaZU/35KQPiM/K+XLYheYUojEO74m+CFbmb/A==
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BF15C40079 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:18:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:18:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4532875.QxLTiTrTcc@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-158-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <154047143209.16346.15313646515633169869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <154047143209.16346.15313646515633169869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L28CWVReXoBBiSSy2tc-JPeXD3I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:18:42 -0000

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 05:43:52 AM The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain-based Message
> Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG (dmarc) to consider the
> following document: - 'Message Header Field for Indicating Message
> Authentication Status' <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> as Proposed
> Standard
...

I have reviewed this draft and support the changes.  I only have one concern:

As written, is it appropriate for this draft to obsolete RFC 7601?  Should it 
update it instead?

In the Email Authentication Parameters registry [1] there are 63 parameters 
that use RFC 7601 as the reference for their definition.  They are not 
replicated in this document.

As it stands, that would result in the registry using a historic document for 
definitions in an active registry.  Is that OK?

Assuming it's not (because if it is, then there's no issue to discuss), there 
are two solutions I can suggest:

1.  Change this draft to update RFC 7601 rather than obsolete it.
2.  Add the missing parameters from RFC 7601 to this draft and update the 
registry entries to use it as the reference.

I think the former is easier and the latter a bit cleaner for implementers to 
have fewer documents to sort through.  I don't have an opinion on which would 
be better.

Scott K


[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml