On Thu 13/Feb/2025 22:12:33 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
This rev is meant to address issues raised during the most recent set of IESG
reviews - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/ballot/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/ballot/>
Hmm, the introductory paragraph for IANA could be amended. It says:
The properties of an email message to be evaluated by an email
authentication method are registered with IANA in this registry.
Entries are assigned only for values that have been documented in a
manner that satisfies the terms of Specification Required, per
[RFC8126]. Each registration includes the authentication method; the
specification that defines the authentication method; the property
type (ptype), which is one of the ptype values from the entries in
the "Email Authentication Property Types" registry in this same
registry group; the property; the value for that property; the status
of the property, which is one of "active" or "deprecated"; and its
version. The Designated Expert needs to confirm that the provided
specification adequately describes the property and the method for
its evaluation and clearly presents how they would be used within the
DMARC context by Domain Owners and Mail Receivers.
Why do we have to say so? The "Email Authentication Methods" Registry
Description is given in Section 6.2 of RFC 8601. The preceding paragraph seems
authoritative about what the registry is required to contain. For example, it
seems state that every method in the registry should present how it should be
used within the DMARC context.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
