Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > 7601bis loosens the language about what's appropriate to send downstream, > > from being only authenticated identifiers to also allowing other related > > stuff that downstream agents might want to use or log.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Monday, February 19, 2018 08:42:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine wrote: > > Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs > > ever published. > > Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs ever published. Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its antecedents was in last call? No errata?) I admit I could have been paying more

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine wrote: > Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs > ever published. > Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its antecedents was in last call? No errata?) > The IANA

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

In article you write: >Et voila. If you go to the "History" tab and request a diff from the >individual -00 to the working group -00, you can see all of the changes >made relative to RFC7601. Basically it loosens up the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Wednesday, February 07, 2018 09:11:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. ... > > Let me know if I missed anything. On the DCRUP mailing list

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice if you could fold in. Is this stuff in scope for this working group? This feels a bit like feature creep. Or should your draft just modify this one instead of RFC7601? The changes are so small that this could go

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On February 8, 2018 5:11:48 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote: > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain-based

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:40 AM, John R. Levine wrote: > Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice > if you could fold in. > [...] Is this stuff in scope for this working group? This feels a bit like feature creep. Or should your draft just

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice if you could fold in. In section 1.5, I'd add a section about EAI, pointing to RFCs 6530-2, and saying that in EAI messages, you can have UTF-8 most places you can have text intended for humans, and U-labels anywhere

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

Looks great to me. This allows us to simplify several pieces of ARC and make the draft easier to follow. Thank you! On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 21:11 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote: > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, > Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > Title :