On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d, >>> so why not just add header.s? >>> >> >> Yes, quite so. Please see my note from earlier this morning. header.s is >> already defined for 7601, we just need to indicate that it needs to be >> added into the A-R and AAR rather than leaving it to chance. >> > > header.s is NOT defined: https://www.iana.org/ > assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml > > That's why I explicitly mentioned in the earlier thread about IANA > registrations (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/72GKJ1mMd6Pc5_D > WYGgnLE-Uzxw) that we'd need to add it after 7601bis. > > To John's point, this is why I've been pushing hard for 7601bis, adding > header.s to DKIM is far cleaner than trying to do header.ds in arc > directly. This is why I asked question #2 in this thread: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0 > I'm just not getting (from reading the text of 7601 several times today) how including an extra ptype makes a "normative redefinition" of 7601. RFC7001 clearly says that additional ptypes are expected over time. If anything, we're considering a "normative redefinition" of 6008 which talks about listing info for more than one DKIM header, but I think the term is a misnomer. It appears to me that the "7601 replaces all former definitions" work was just incompletely implemented by IANA. We can certainly patch over those gaps as we care about the data for ARC within our spec, but it seems like having an IANA errata for 7601 would be a cleaner and more apropos vehicle. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
