On November 3, 2018 4:44:39 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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. I don't think so. Scott K
