On 5/1/2014 5:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <5362B4C6(_dot_)10904(_at_)meetinghouse(_dot_)net>, 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in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.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