Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Dave Crocker
On 12/22/2014 11:39 AM, Kurt Andersen wrote: > Failing means that the polices are not applied. As in MUST NOT be > applied. > > > DMARC is built on a positive assertion model. To say that a failure > means that no policy is applied is contrary to the model. The policy is > explicitly *ap

[dmarc-ietf] DMARC and TEMP errors was: Re: Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, December 22, 2014 11:16:01 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > >> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a > >> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation." > > > > +1 > > We need to be car

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Franck Martin
- Original Message - > From: "Dave Crocker" > To: "R E Sonneveld" , "Scott Kitterman" > > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 11:16:01 AM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 > > On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > >> > >> Perhaps 5.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Rolf E. Sonneveld
On 12/22/2014 08:16 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation." +1 We need to be careful about how this is phrased. I sp

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Kurt Andersen
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > >> > >> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a > >> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation." > > > > +1 > > We need to be caref

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Dave Crocker
On 12/22/2014 11:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: >> >> Perhaps 5.6.3 needs something like "SHOULD NOT act on DMARC policy if a >> temporary error in SPF or DKIM processing prevents a full evaluation." > > +1 We need to be careful about how this is phrased. I specifically suspect that the above

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Rolf E. Sonneveld
On 12/22/2014 08:02 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:40:36 PM Franck Martin wrote: - Original Message - From: "Scott Kitterman" To: dmarc@ietf.org Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 On Friday, Dece

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:40:36 PM Franck Martin wrote: > - Original Message - > > > From: "Scott Kitterman" > > To: dmarc@ietf.org > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM > > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 > > > > On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Franck Martin
- Original Message - > From: "Scott Kitterman" > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:44:04 AM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 > > On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Colleagues, > > > > draft-kucherawy-dmar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04

2014-12-22 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:30:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Colleagues, > > draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base is nearing IESG conflict review, and it's been > pointed out that a review from back in April has not been properly attended > to. > > Could I get the WG (forgive me, co-chairs!) to co