Shepherd Writeup draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis
(1) The document is Standards Track, and this is the correct type.
(2)
Technical Summary:
This document describes the Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol.
DMARC permits the owner of an email author's domain name to enable verification
of the domain's use, to indicate the Domain Owner's or Public Suffix Operator's
message handling preference regarding failed verification, and to request
reports about the use of the domain name. Mail receiving organizations can use
this information when evaluating handling choices for incoming mail.
Working Group Summary:
The consensus was extremely rough in places, and some places contentious. The
list of major and critical issues tracked is a very good place to start
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+label%3Amajor%2Ccritical
The shepherd has attempted to summarize these issues, but felt the issues
should be reviewed. There are a few discussions worth deep dives.
The PSL/Tree Walk discussion
Using SPF as part of DMARC, despite the industry having issues with it.
p=reject
Document Quality:
There are a number of existing implementations of DMARC, and the industry is
strongly behind DMARC. There are a number of reviewers who have done deep
reviews of this document, and the shepherd feels this
Personnel:
Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski
Responsible AD is Murray Kucherawy
(3) The document underwent detailed review by the shepherd for content and
editorial updates. The AD has done a detailed review also, and should be taken
into account
The shepherd does feel this document needs detailed directorate reviews,
especially from the Security and DNS Directorates.
(4) This document has undergone a long and involved process and the review by
the working group has reached rough consensus.
There are a LOT of changes from 7489 and the RFC diff is not something which is
usable. RFC 7489 also had content on the reporting functions which have been
moved into a completely different document.
(5) area and directorate reviews will be carried out, and the shepherd has
requested a DNS directorate review.
(6) The shepherd has no concerts with this document at this time.
(7) There are no IPR disclosures required
(8) There are no IPR disclosures filed.
(9) WG consensus is solid, despite the roughness. It does represent the
consensus of the majority of the working group. While there are a few
individuals with issues, they do not appear to be on the same specific points.
(10) No appeals at this time.
(11) All nits have been addressed.
(12)
There is ABNF in this document and it has been checked several times, as the WG
made changes from the ABNF in 7489.
The document shepherd did several ABNF tests to confirm the ABNF was logically
and syntactically correct.
(13) All references have been identified as either normative or informative?
(14) All normative references are in a finished state.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7489
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7960
(16) the document will obsolete RFCs 7489 and 9091 and they are listed in all
the correct locations.
(17)
The IANA Considerations section has several updates to the original RFC, but
these are all consistent with the current IANA considerations in the document.
(18) No new registries, just updates to existing ones.
(19) ABNF checks were done and confirmed on the updated ABNF
(20) No YANG