Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Thu, 25 August 2011 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DCB21F8B98 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X7lwMW-ZZXdP for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A7421F8B80 for <yam@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so3706718pzk.18 for <yam@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q+TrWPLYNbK70j9DEifrm78BcECScD6JQfExrAoZoOg=; b=BZOHhkNMyh2RwYtEEtujtcBoEOjBURh5d/4k/deRD42nqsptUgbpNQNw4Si+u1ygWs Uc4d0vzBwIZ/t7rxKuxofJgDl6YHLJdX5ASXcEl/QW9W5D3eqem24VylYp7klq1UIivi KAH8z9NieKPO0mlmI+jH46Hy0pCuFTxTiB60o=
Received: by 10.143.60.19 with SMTP id n19mr2976780wfk.241.1314232594104; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.98.5 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <35870B5079725979F2F0DF75@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <20110822174540.26398.33846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110823123557.0d863778@elandnews.com> <D41B604F-9452-4F9F-80BA-1FE5B74B171E@vigilsec.com> <9FF24CD8B21A5EAD6E856220@PST.JCK.COM> <01O58CRGKY1M00ZF4Y@mauve.mrochek.com> <DA27D32C2ACF5B84285B9BF3@PST.JCK.COM> <CAHhFyboozX0RgQe=n=jBx2y923VRSfig0KDg6wuy4Z0MS23y+A@mail.gmail.com> <35870B5079725979F2F0DF75@PST.JCK.COM>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:35:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybp6mvxqEyNoB4As2ryYhx+jV9EKodLRBUDwdQnJD0Ozrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:35:23 -0000

On 25 August 2011 01:41, John C Klensin wrote:

>> still new (= interesting for readers) and maybe unique.

> Yes, except that DKIM doesn't necessarily sign _all_ headers,
> so mentioning it specifically in this context requires a lot
> more detail...

IMHO "e.g., [DKIM]" would not require more details, but I'm not
hot about it, and certainly agree that more details are wrong:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00769.html>

> If a primary goal is to mention (advertise?) DKIM

Not by me.  I just happen to know that DKIM is not like PGP or
other signatures; DKIM could have "a high astonishment factor"
for 4409bis readers who think to know what MICs and signatures
are, but don't know DKIM.

>> "Gmail, fix the SPF FAIL for me, will you."  I fear my
>>  administrative control has limits, as outlined in RFC 5598
>>  figure 4 s/transit/SUBMIT/.

> Please note "formally" and observe that, if you don't like
> what Gmail is doing, you are not obligated to use them as an
> address or submission server.

Maybe I'll revive the GMX account where SPF FAIL works, or use
@xyzzy.claranet.de again.  While we evaluate the last comma in
present or absent references, somebody said that an informative
RFC 5332 reference is no downref.  Checking RFC 4897 after Sam
and you talked about it I found that nothing is wrong with the
RFC 5332 downref note:

| At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached
| to non-normative references.

-Frank