IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 29C231A028B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:30:46 -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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 mhmOAZdLQjiy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AB01A01C5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.134.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6HMUUPe012992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1405636241; x=1405722641; bh=2vn8yrZtlVaEnUDwPNey8MyvIoMYdUYpqmOwNnShi20=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VFE05SIpfvPsVXgg7MblARwpxlwz227TCFSGco7Cz9wyXJ4h0mesQ/Dt3Vap3ZkL7 hiMIoY8vulAP7uA6P8Uq6ySoYZaNsiKjX8/D8ccT7xXhtlViIPQLzXWCUsNBwWk4hy oJeRauhG0ksxJjwsmkNNOfCF696BBSnuxU1f3v+o=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1405636241; x=1405722641; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2vn8yrZtlVaEnUDwPNey8MyvIoMYdUYpqmOwNnShi20=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=d8M7+Bu70h6N3HTij9Ouuay/zKgB2xQf2SLvj/ymg0tr+/iKwHSGBkpmwlzPnSf0K xdS5av9Az9IQp5XGs9DMCArltG+plb737cxED+VtVMEfZ+U99AYkTU9fdy7miOjXNu kVXGniseSDbMRkXTDRC6L5T9mMRYS0jlGwG0xB3A=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140717141709.0d26ea10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:25:22 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+ND3Z0UX_i+dTi67RWH_ESVn+LyHyLQBSBJC5dxmL6Kg@mail.g mail.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> <CALaySJ+ND3Z0UX_i+dTi67RWH_ESVn+LyHyLQBSBJC5dxmL6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/P7MWzImSrJxX-rTuVB0jm9IFrao
Cc: 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 22:30:46 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 13:08 17-07-2014, Barry Leiba wrote:
>I don't understand that: why does the creation of a registry commit 
>the IETF to do work in future?

Let's assume that a registry is created.  There is a presumption that 
the registry will be used in future.  Otherwise, it does not make 
sense to spend time reviewing the IANA Considerations section in IETF 
drafts.  The assignment guidance is for people to contact the IETF to 
request an assignment in that registry.  From the IETF side they 
would be some commitment to review the request.  Otherwise, it would 
seem like the IETF is saying things that it would be unable to do.

It could be said that the IETF accepts the responsibility for all 
aspects of the registry, even though some aspects may rarely or never be seen.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email