Hi John and Todd, Thank you both for the quick replies. We will leave "RFC5322.From” as is.
We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On May 18, 2026, at 9:53 AM, Todd Herr <[email protected]> wrote: > > I concur. Leave it as it is. > > > Todd > > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 12:52 John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2026, Alanna Paloma wrote: > > > Hi Todd and John, > > > > Thank you for your replies. We’ve fixed the nits pointed out by John and > > noted his approval on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9989 > > > > We have one additional question regarding "RFC5322.From”. > > The description of the From header in 5322bis is unchanged from 5322 (I > just checked) and I expect that people reading this document will be > familar with RFC5322.From. So I'd prefer to leave it as is and not wait. > > Todd? > > R's, > John > > > > > The current value for dmarc in the "Email Authentication Methods" registry > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml#email-auth-methods> > > cites 5322bis, while this document uses "RFC5322.From” throughout. > > > > IANA registry: > > The domain portion of the [RFC-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-12].From header > > field > > > > Currently in document: > > The domain portion of the RFC5322.From header field > > > > Is RFC 5322 or 5322bis preferred? If 5322bis is preferred, this document > > will be paused and moved with Cluster C540. > > > > —Files — > > > > XML file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.xml > > > > Output files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.pdf > > > > Diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-lastdiff.html (last version to > > this one) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > > between last version and this) > > > >> On May 15, 2026, at 11:49 AM, Todd Herr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> For the official record, I concur with John's two minor items here. > >> > >> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 2:49 PM John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I went through and found two minor items. I checked with Todd who agrees > >> with them. Other than that, ready to go. > >> > >> In 3.2.17, "PSD's policy" should instead be "PSO's policy". > >> > >> In B.2.2, the reference to RFC6591 reports should be to RFC9991 reports. > >> > >> I made a pull request if you want to use it. > >> > >> Regards, > >> John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > >> Dummies", > >> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > >> > >> On Wed, 13 May 2026, Alanna Paloma wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Todd and John, > >>> > >>> We have merged the updates. > >>> > >>> Additionally, we have further updated the ABNF in Section 4.8, as the > >>> previously suggested update was 1 character over the 72-character limit. > >>> > >>> Current: > >>> dmarc-urilist = (dmarc-uri / obs-dmarc-uri) > >>> *(*WSP "," *WSP (dmarc-uri / obs-dmarc-uri)) > >>> > >>> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us > >>> know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for > >>> publication. We consider this your final assent that the document is > >>> ready for publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for > >>> publication, please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all > >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >>> > >>> XML file: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.xml > >>> > >>> Output files: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.pdf > >>> > >>> Comprehensive diff file of the text: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-diff.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9989 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Alanna Paloma > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>> On May 12, 2026, at 11:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>> > >>>> Updated 2026/05/12 > >>>> > >>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>> -------------- > >>>> > >>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. > >>>> > >>>> AUTH48 is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot test (see > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test). > >>>> > >>>> Your document is available for review at: > >>>> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989 > >>>> > >>>> Please do the following: > >>>> > >>>> a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators. > >>>> > >>>> b) see the README for details on the AUTH48 process: > >>>> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989/blob/Approved/README.md > >>>> > >>>> c) review and resolve the issues: > >>>> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989/issues > >>>> > >>>> Once the content is stable in GitHub, we will provide the updated XML > >>>> file and the output files for review and approval. > >>>> > >>>> You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >>>> your approval. > >>>> > >>>> Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors, > >>>> it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer > >>>> available, there are several remedies available as listed in the > >>>> FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>> > >>>> RFC Editor > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>> RFC 9989 (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-41) > >>>> > >>>> Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and > >>>> Conformance (DMARC) > >>>> Author(s) : T. Herr, Ed., J. Levine, Ed. > >>>> WG Chair(s) : Barry Leiba, Seth Blank > >>>> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Charles Eckel > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Regards, > >> John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > >> Dummies", > >> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Todd > >> > > > > > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
