Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:18:34 -0400

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 05:43:52 AM The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain-based Message
> Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG (dmarc) to consider the
> following document: - 'Message Header Field for Indicating Message
> Authentication Status' <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> as Proposed
> Standard
...

I have reviewed this draft and support the changes.  I only have one concern:

As written, is it appropriate for this draft to obsolete RFC 7601?  Should it 
update it instead?

In the Email Authentication Parameters registry [1] there are 63 parameters 
that use RFC 7601 as the reference for their definition.  They are not 
replicated in this document.

As it stands, that would result in the registry using a historic document for 
definitions in an active registry.  Is that OK?

Assuming it's not (because if it is, then there's no issue to discuss), there 
are two solutions I can suggest:

1.  Change this draft to update RFC 7601 rather than obsolete it.
2.  Add the missing parameters from RFC 7601 to this draft and update the 
registry entries to use it as the reference.

I think the former is easier and the latter a bit cleaner for implementers to 
have fewer documents to sort through.  I don't have an opinion on which would 
be better.

Scott K

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml