Re: Enough DMARC whinging

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

 



On 5/1/2014 5:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
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        in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
        published without IETF review and IESG approval.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.

Yup. DMARC undoes the signer domain vs author domain "separation question" DKIM says it does in the rfc6376 abstract and repeated in the introduction:

   DKIM separates the question of the identity of the Signer
   of the message from the purported author of the message.

We never found out what the "question" was.

--
HLS






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