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> Sat, 03 November 2018 05:18 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 E5D2512958B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 22:18:25 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=pqZCy44D; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=bQlIWd8H
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 lDk70GvBhM_B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 22:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0CA130E25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 22:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1541222300; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : cc : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=W0+7CSGkahegC5NrScJC/oiiQRKbBBHCyUicx95/Dk0=; b=pqZCy44DNuXC5fIxC6kzOVzZYYSYzJT7P7QAmFNBfrtpx7DBRdb00DHf lGIQBFnu5MHJfd87l5AsPU7tzCezAQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1541222300; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : cc : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=W0+7CSGkahegC5NrScJC/oiiQRKbBBHCyUicx95/Dk0=; b=bQlIWd8HawoEvX8jBZuDNtE25AEL3k/cRkZI4OH4g0ynEVN5QFfuKNBA A2mg7iLc9GwWCak0pn45AwOBs2Pe0GHuLRIUg0kNrTeXTVwqhGLgG4Tcoq o2OEzj9LOIzwPloskwHyAPX0XTzMDBeCLEOeTGVbCJT97HyCr0mdsIWOPP uYL/R38FgxPmhRh21RnV7NP7Hd7v212vZPA3NW6wHzp2oi2n+toP0N+yrE loDFEboKLiXYLA7g8uSSrNV++SR6ySgw+B/7cJdnE5x5lY2d4EbxTA8mma eHx2PL7BU/hoXctIg4xYAz3NH4woQupXHhf+HR7rEvbArGVMzdBwQw==
Received: from [192.168.1.146] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36CB6C40229; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 00:18:20 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 05:18:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaUz4kKUc5Vy0w01-X_DervAX5MtopVXpTv_4mwO-3Msg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <154047143209.16346.15313646515633169869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4532875.QxLTiTrTcc@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwaUz4kKUc5Vy0w01-X_DervAX5MtopVXpTv_4mwO-3Msg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
CC: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <8B86FB0C-9339-4F4A-9DBF-EF1B54371D87@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Opb-VG6Y687Jtr10aPnNPB3HIh0>
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: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 05:18:26 -0000


On November 3, 2018 4:44:39 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>; wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:19 AM Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>;
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Yeah, good catch.
>
>I'm inclined to change this to "updates" rather than "obsoletes".  It's
>otherwise a lot of stuff to copy over just for the sake of making
>keeping
>this as an omnibus document.  I'll do that unless someone makes an
>argument
>for the other choice.
>
>Are there any registry entries you think that should reference both
>documents?  IANA lets us do that for registrations for which an
>implementer
>should be pointed to more than one reference.

I don't think so.

Scott K