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> Thu, 15 November 2018 03:44 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 C98F31277D2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:44:15 -0800 (PST)
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=hRCK6OGy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=jCmtsUvt
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 LLrBcLDRis40 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:44:13 -0800 (PST)
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 76ED412426A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:44:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1542253451; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=14NYTdaDl/U9gzC2YN46+zBEDiyi04twfg8+seivbQE=; b=hRCK6OGyuwpC+G0WzbeUAMJVWOjkZgtj2gaAW2doigropuJDMwFOu6dX ojr2cu4Lr0p41BFjXZdLUB6ZKBG2Bw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1542253451; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=14NYTdaDl/U9gzC2YN46+zBEDiyi04twfg8+seivbQE=; b=jCmtsUvtl6fTkdmZM22nbuJFl/wvhJrOmSKqfRbSc+DiHTQm2HZ9wROb UAR5poychCiDd7prfE57aV6RmhaKCMgFPJ9n2mREgXBQmt+qthAUYjPuxQ 78nsDYX9Q7vTOIsXJx0kaT2BXHsf2PR1vkXu+253GYQTGhboau1Qw0tvEJ 8rug4ct0NUiQ4yyENpBOmHex/iy19cSgjc90PS74Hw2sYHJVadSADTi0fE RKAmEVTqXpctnGej6dNhUw4rLllCPqsxHr1UfjVHWsgecDTPLNpRxY0e4Y Ofgn2mfcnf+HEzPEy7DFrUCXpxmkshX/KgQiw5rnOn8dXPZpdLDWJQ==
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 B698DC4007A; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 21:44:11 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 03:44:10 +0000
In-Reply-To: <8B86FB0C-9339-4F4A-9DBF-EF1B54371D87@kitterman.com>
References: <154047143209.16346.15313646515633169869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4532875.QxLTiTrTcc@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwaUz4kKUc5Vy0w01-X_DervAX5MtopVXpTv_4mwO-3Msg@mail.gmail.com> <8B86FB0C-9339-4F4A-9DBF-EF1B54371D87@kitterman.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: ietf@ietf.org,"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <7D5A9151-78A5-48D1-A413-443D59C5F90F@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RyshE8VVridjzC6p2Vk_MuTjmzQ>
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 03:44:16 -0000


On November 3, 2018 5:18:19 AM UTC, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>; wrote:
>
>
>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

For avoidance of doubt, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04 has been posted.  It resolves my concern.

Scott K