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in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.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