Documents are obsoleted by other documents. Protocols and technologies become historic by the fact that they're not/no longer in use. There is a difference between "obsolete" and "historic". It makes perfect sense to say that the technologies described in RFCs 4405-4407 are historic, as they're no longer in use; the fact that if was an experimental technology isn't relevant to that. And RFC 6686 did not make that (Sender ID becoming historic) happen. It's true that 6686 could have requested that the IESG change the status of Sender ID to Historic. It didn't. And this situation is exactly what the "status change" document set was created for: to perform these sorts of status changes without having to publish new RFCs. There's no reason to use errata for this sort of thing. We have what we need to do the right thing, and we're doing it. Let's not make it more complicated than it needs to be. Barry On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:18 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Those three RFCs are experimental, and RFC 6686 ended the experiment. > I'm not sure what if anything an historic experiment means. > > I would suggest filing an erratum on 6686 so that it obsoletes > 4405-4407 and leave it at that. If we really want to make these three > historic, file a further erratum on 6686 which should have have said > so. > > R's, > John > > >>> The IESG has received a request from DMARC WG to make the >>> following status changes: >>> >>> - RFC4405 from Experimental to Historic >>> (SMTP Service Extension for Indicating the Responsible Submitter of an >>> E-Mail Message) >>> >>> - RFC4406 from Experimental to Historic >>> (Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail) >>> >>> - RFC4407 from Experimental to Historic >>> (Purported Responsible Address in E-Mail Messages) >>> >>> The supporting document for this request can be found here: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-change-sender-id-to-historic/ > -- Barry -- Barry Leiba (barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx) http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
