Re: Enough DMARC whinging

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In message <5362B4C6.10904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miles Fidelman writes:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > On 5/1/2014 1:36 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> >> I'd like to understand the relationship of RFC 4846, which is
> >> Informational, with RFC 5792/BCP 92 here. The latter gives IESG 5
> >> options for review of independent submissions for conflicts with the
> >> IETF standards process, such as:
> >>
> >>     5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
> >>        in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
> >>        published without IETF review and IESG approval.
> >
> > Since DMARC does not extend any existing IETF protocol, how is that
> > reference useful here?
> 
> Sure looks to me like DMARC extends both SMTP and DNS.

And DKIM.
 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]