On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:19 AM Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As written, is it appropriate for this draft to obsolete RFC 7601? Should it
update it instead?
In the Email Authentication Parameters registry [1] there are 63 parameters
that use RFC 7601 as the reference for their definition. They are not
replicated in this document.
As it stands, that would result in the registry using a historic document for
definitions in an active registry. Is that OK?
Assuming it's not (because if it is, then there's no issue to discuss), there
are two solutions I can suggest:
1. Change this draft to update RFC 7601 rather than obsolete it.
2. Add the missing parameters from RFC 7601 to this draft and update the
registry entries to use it as the reference.
I think the former is easier and the latter a bit cleaner for implementers to
have fewer documents to sort through. I don't have an opinion on which would
be better.
Yeah, good catch.
I'm inclined to change this to "updates" rather than "obsoletes". It's otherwise a lot of stuff to copy over just for the sake of making keeping this as an omnibus document. I'll do that unless someone makes an argument for the other choice.
Are there any registry entries you think that should reference both documents? IANA lets us do that for registrations for which an implementer should be pointed to more than one reference.
-MSK
