Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #50 (Remove ri= tag) - With Interim Notes

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 11:43:59 -0400

Greetings.

Consensus on Ticket #50 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/50>
(Remove ri= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC Interim to remove the
tag and update the IANA registry to reflect its removal.

I seek consensus from the working group at large on this ticket, and
request that a decision be made by Friday, June 11. Discussions about this
issue should be contained in this thread.

Thank you.

-- 

*Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager
*e:* [email-masked]
*m:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 12:21:51 -0400

All,

This is the current text in Section 10.4 of dmarc-bis

   Names of DMARC tags must be registered with IANA in this new sub-
   registry.  New entries are assigned only for values that have been
   documented in a manner that satisfies the terms of Specification
   Required, per [RFC8126].  Each registration must include the tag
   name; the specification that defines it; a brief description; and its
   status, which must be one of "current", "experimental", or
   "historic".  The Designated Expert needs to confirm that the provided
   specification adequately describes the new tag and clearly presents
   how it would be used within the DMARC context by Domain Owners and
   Mail Receivers.

I don't believe we can actually remove said tag from the IANA registry,
but we can mark them as "historic", and remove the text from the
new document.

Someone should consult with the IANA folks for specifics.
I'll volunteer to take point if so desired.

tim

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:44 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 19:34:14 +0200

On Fri 28/May/2021 17:43:59 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> 
> Consensus on Ticket #50 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/50> (Remove 
> ri= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC Interim to remove the tag and 
> update the IANA registry to reflect its removal.

Agree to totally eliminate ri= from the spec.  Report producers should be free 
to choose the best reporting frequency.

Best
Ale
--

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 May 2021 13:59:11 -0400

It appears that Tim Wicinski  <[email-masked]> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-

Marking it "historic" seems appropriate, since that'll keep future versions
of DMARC from using it for something else.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 14:35:02 -0400

> of DMARC from using it for something else.

+1

Michael Hammer

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:00:05 -0400

Editors,

I sent y'all a pull request.

Tim

---

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 17:30:11 -0700

On 5/28/21 08:43, Todd Herr wrote:
> (Remove ri= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC Interim to remove
> the tag and update the IANA registry to reflect its removal.

I support removing the tag from the specification, but following TIm
Wisnewski suggestion to mark the tag as "historic" in the IANA registry.