IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DMARC and yahoo

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 22 April 2014 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 23FDF1A0515 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 e9SvY-fVOPK4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAD31A0227 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3MF6sYB014860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:06:57 -0700
Message-ID: <5356850D.70206@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:04:45 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC and yahoo
References: <DFC043AEFFD831DBABB4A5D9@[192.168.1.128]> <01P6X52G5HZM000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5355E4CB.3060008@dcrocker.net> <01P6XSHUZT9K000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01P6XSHUZT9K000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YXvMYoxR5MA78qn-MhygLnpb4yk
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:07:08 -0000

On 4/22/2014 7:03 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> Yes, that's the obvious place to put this material, rather than putting it
> in the base specification. But then the base specification has to reference
> this in a normative fashion.


While it's plausible and reasonable that a technical specification could 
contain usage guidance like this, it's not at all required.

I believe it for more often that "implications" are typically put into 
BCP-like documents.

For example:

    DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377

As for doing a BCP on a document that isn't an IETF consensus document, 
we do versions of that periodically, for work developed outside that is 
used by, or affects, IETF-based specs.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email