Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

> On Aug 3, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I feel like we're making a lot more edits here than the WG intended to make. > It's fine if the WG wants to turn this into a larger editorial pass, but I > thought the updates here were tightly scoped before, namely just enough to >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Seth Blank wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:25 AM, John Levine wrote: >> >> > To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the >> >others being proposed? >> >> Not that I've seen. I thought we agreed to make changes to support ARC, >> to >> h

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On 8/3/2018 7:35 AM, Seth Blank wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:25 AM, John Levine > wrote: > To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the >others being proposed? Not that I've seen.  I thought we agreed to make changes to support

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:25 AM, John Levine wrote: > > > To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the > >others being proposed? > > Not that I've seen. I thought we agreed to make changes to support ARC, to > handle EAI, and to fix any actual errors. Other than that, leav

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > > To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the >others being proposed? Not that I've seen. I thought we agreed to make changes to support ARC, to handle EAI, and to fix any actual errors. Other than that, leave it alone. R's, John

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

To the rest of the WG: Is there consensus to make this change or the others being proposed? I feel like we're making a lot more edits here than the WG intended to make. It's fine if the WG wants to turn this into a larger editorial pass, but I thought the updates here were tightly scoped before,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Tue 31/Jul/2018 15:10:21 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>> Do you have a suggestion for alternative text? >> >> Say: >> >> In that case, if the producer intent is not to harm or mislead, the trust >> in this field's content would be proportional to the estimated quality of >> t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Do you have a suggestion for alternative text? > > Say: > > In that case, if the producer intent is not to harm or mislead, the > trust > in this field's content would be proportional to the estimated quality > of > the pro

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Mon 30/Jul/2018 07:58:29 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> *Section 1.2. "Trust Boundary"* >> That section ends with two questionable statements about A-R fields found >> in an attachment:>> >> The details

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

To get an early start on shepherding the draft, I gave the draft a top-to-bottom review with an eye towards readability. To ease the editor's burden, I'm avoiding posting a wall of diffs and have opted for sending changes directly to the editor for consideration. I'll leave it up to the editor

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM, John R Levine wrote: > In authentication service identifiers in EAI-formatted messages, a U-label > and its equivalent A-label are considered to be the same. > > Does that mean the proposed change is appropriate, or the current text is >> sufficient?

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

In authentication service identifiers in EAI-formatted messages, a U-label and its equivalent A-label are considered to be the same. Does that mean the proposed change is appropriate, or the current text is sufficient? I still prefer my proposed change. The way you handle A-labels and U-lab

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Sun 15/Jul/2018 20:04:51 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > > So begins Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis- > 02. > > > > Please review the latest version: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rf

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:13 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <4878884.yiV4iTtLKX@kitterma-e6430> you write: > >> In authentication service identifiers in EAI-formatted messages, a > U-label > >> and its equivalent A-label are considered to be the same. > > > >As an implementer (who's tried re

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

In article <4878884.yiV4iTtLKX@kitterma-e6430> you write: >> In authentication service identifiers in EAI-formatted messages, a U-label >> and its equivalent A-label are considered to be the same. > >As an implementer (who's tried really hard to avoid spending cycles on EAI - >sorry), does this tr

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:18:00 AM John R Levine wrote: > >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02&url1=rf > >> c7601>> > >> Looks OK to me. I have some minor editorial niggles about the wording > >> of the EAI advice, but the substance is fine. > > In section 5:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Sun 15/Jul/2018 20:04:51 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > So begins Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02. > > Please review the latest version: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ > and send comments to the DMARC working group mailing list

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02&url1=rfc7601 Looks OK to me. I have some minor editorial niggles about the wording of the EAI advice, but the substance is fine. In section 5: For messages that are EAI-formatted messages, this test is done after con

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:49 AM, John Levine wrote: > Try this: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc- > rfc7601bis-02&url1=rfc7601 > > Looks OK to me. I have some minor editorial niggles about the wording > of the EAI advice, but the substance is fine. > > [re-adding dmarc@ie

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

Excellent. Then all my comments have been addressed and I have nothing further. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > >> I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments >> have all been address

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Seth Blank wrote: > I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments > have all been addressed. I have two final comments: > > 1) Section 6.4 mentions changes to section 2.3 which include slightly > different language than in 7601. I see no

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

I've reviewed. All the technical matters look good, and earlier comments have all been addressed. I have two final comments: 1) Section 6.4 mentions changes to section 2.3 which include slightly different language than in 7601. I see no difference whatsoever (walking back diffs 02-01, 01-00) betwe

[dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

So begins Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02. Please review the latest version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ and send comments to the DMARC working group mailing list by 3 August. If you review it and think it's ready to go and y