On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Here's what I've come up with. This is a diff between RFC7601 as > published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the > DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review. Please let me > know if I've missed anything. I'll post it at the end of the coming > week if there are no issues raised.> > http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.htmlThis > is looks good to me. One small ABNF glitch introduced:
>authres-header-field = "Authentication-Results:" authres-payload > >authres-payload = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id You have "Authentication-Results:" twice now. I think you want to delete it from authres-payload. > > -MSK > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov > <[email protected]> wrote:>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry > Leiba wrote: >> > Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations >> > sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses >> > appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection >> > that>> > says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this >> > document, RFC 7601:", or some such >> >> Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged >> from RFC 7601:".>> >> >), and then let's have a quick >> > working group review of the result? (And, of course, change it >> > back>> > to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".) >> > >> > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any >> > approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move >> > forward.>> >> I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue >> for the final document.>> >> > Thanks, >> > Barry >> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov >> > <[email protected]> wrote:>> > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> > > > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go >> > > > back to>> > > > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the >> details of >> > > > what was>> > > > put in the registries before. But the working >> group decided >> > > > to do it>> > > > the other way, and there's been criticism in the >> past of ADs >> > > > (and, so,>> > > > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of >> stuff, so I >> > > > decided to>> > > > let it go. I'll let the IESG sort this one out, >> but I'll go >> > > > on record>> > > > as saying what I think the better way to handle it >> is. >> > > >> > > I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of >> > > dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document >> > > is self contained and there is no need for readers to see >> > > obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.>> > > >> > > If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs >> > > editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.>> > > >> > > Best Regards, >> > > Alexey >> > > >> > > > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way. >> > > > >> > > > Barry >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote:>> > > > > >> > > > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> > > > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss >> > > > > >> > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and >> > > > > reply to all>> > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC >> lines. (Feel free >> > > > > to cut this>> > > > > introductory paragraph, however.) >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Please refer to >> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>> > > > >> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT >> > > > > positions.>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be >> > > > > found here:>> > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > ---------->> > > > > DISCUSS: >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > ---------->> > > > > >> > > > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern >> > > > > about this being>> > > > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it >> seem like a full >> > > > > replacement. I'm>> > > > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I >> think this needs to be >> > > > > resolved before>> > > > > publication. >> > > > > >> > > > > The current structure will make it very difficult for >> > > > > readers to figure out>> > > > > which parts of each doc they need >> to worry about. I think it >> > > > > needs to either go>> > > > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it >> needs to be recast to just >> > > > > talk about the>> > > > > changes. Note that if the former path is >> chosen, the IANA >> > > > > considerations in>> > > > > 7601 will need to be copied forward. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > ---------->> > > > > COMMENT: >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > > ---------->> > > > > >> > > > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly >> > > > > avoiding unnecessary>> > > > > changes. That makes the diff tools >> much more useful than >> > > > > they are for bis>> > > > > drafts that make wholesale organization >> and stylistic >> > > > > changes.>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Barry >> > > > -- >> > > > Barry Leiba ([email protected]) >> > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ >> > > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
