On November 3, 2018 5:18:19 AM UTC, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >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 For avoidance of doubt, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04 has been posted. It resolves my concern. Scott K
