On 05/03/2014 09:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > ps. The original note was from Jim Fenton and it was him I was asking > to explain his reference. He seemed to be making a point and I was > asking him to provide it explicitly. I have been trying to avoid additional DMARC whinging on this thread (and list), but alas... On 05/01/2014 11:43 AM, 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? > > I was citing one of the five options IESG has. For brevity I chose not to cite all five (everyone can find them in RFC 5742, not 5792 which was a typo). But since you bring it up, DMARC does alter (extend) SMTP, for example by its recommendation in Section 10.1 that messages containing a single RFC5322.From with multiple entities be rejected. It might be argued that's not a significant limitation, but that's what the IETF review is all about. -Jim