On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 7:29 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > In this revision I made an attempt to have consistent language and phrasing for all five sub-sections of the IANA Considerations sections. The model for the language used here is text that has essentially existed in DMARCbis since the publication of rev -00, specifically in what was then sections 10.4 and 10.5 of that document, sections that are now 9.3 and 9.4, respectively, in the current revision. https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/blob/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-00.txt The following sentence: "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." is in reference to the entries provided in the table in section 9.1, not the entire registry. If we hear from the IANA folks that they find any of the language in any of section 9 confusing, then I will produce another rev to address their concerns, but for now I'm inclined to leave it as is. -- Todd Herr Some Guy in VA LLC [email protected] 703-220-4153 Book Time With Me: https://calendar.app.google/tGDuDzbThBdTp3Wx8
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
