Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 12:25:15 +0900

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:03 PM Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 1) I am not sure that deleted IANA registry descriptions (when compared
> to RFC 7601) is the best way, considering that this document obsoletes
> RFC 7601. I think it would be better to just keep the text and add a
> sentence saying that it is unchanged from RFC 7601. But I am happy to
> hear what IESG has to say about this.
>

Sorry, what's being deleted?  RFC7601bis doesn't (shouldn't!) be deleting
anything; it adds a couple of entries and makes itself authoritative for
the registration of the header field, but otherwise nothing is changing.  I
thought that was pretty explicit.

2) The following took really long time to verify for correctness:
>
> [...]
>
> NEW:
>
> "value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME], with "quoted-string"
> updated as specified in RFC 6532.
>

Fixed, though I won't post a new one until after LC (unless you think it
would be useful).

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 03:44:07 +0000

>thought that was pretty explicit.

What should the reference be in the registry for the existing entries?  RFC7601 will be historic, so that hardly seems right and they aren't listed in 7601bis so that doesn't work either.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:24:31 +0900

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:44 PM Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> What should the reference be in the registry for the existing entries?
> RFC7601 will be historic, so that hardly seems right and they aren't listed
> in 7601bis so that doesn't work either.
>

I think your questions (to which I haven't replied just yet) are quite
different than Alexey's statement that something has been "deleted".  I was
trying to resolve that.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 04:44:22 +0000

>different than Alexey's statement that something has been "deleted".  I

Okay.  I had a different interpretation of his comments.

Scott K