Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:02:59 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand why this document is tagged as an Update to RFC7601 and not
as Obsoleting it.  This change was made between the -03 (which was the one in
the IETF LC) and the -04 (current) versions.

As far as I can tell, the contents of this document are the same as rfc7601, +
2 new headers.  Just as the reference for the Authentication-Results Header
Field is being updated to point at this document, the registry pointers to
rfc7601 can also be moved.

I note that this point was brought up during both the AD Review [1] and the
IETF LC [2], which is why I'm not balloting DISCUSS.  However, I think that the
solution (Updating instead of Obsoleting) is not the correct one.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ug2XvXqGjyd6S7utkrSq7pq3wv0
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L28CWVReXoBBiSSy2tc-JPeXD3I

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:54:03 -0800

> draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection

There are some things in this document that are not copied from RFC7601,
which means obsoleting RFC7601 rather than updating it would leave various
IANA registry entries pointing at a dead document.

> solution (Updating instead of Obsoleting) is not the correct one.

The change to "Updates" rather than "Obsoletes" was done as a result of
those same review comments, most notably the second citation you offered.

-MSK