IANA, Please update the “Email Authentication Methods” registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml#email-auth-methods> as follows.
Old: Method: dmarc Value: The domain portion of the [RFC-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-12].From header field Method: dmarc Value: The evaluated DMARC policy applied/to be applied after policy options have been processed. Must be "none", "quarantine", or "reject". New: Method: dmarc Value: The domain portion of the RFC5322.From header field Method: dmarc Value: The evaluated DMARC policy applied / to be applied after policy options have been processed. Must be "none", "quarantine", or "reject". The diff file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-diff.html Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On May 18, 2026, at 10:02 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
