Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-05

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Instead of getting into a bike shed discussion about what's common and how
> can
> we tell, what about something like this:
>
>   At the time of publication of this document, the following are
>   published, authentication methods:
>
>   o  Author Domain Signing Practices ([ADSP]) (Historic)
>   o  Domain-based Message Authentication,  Reporting and Conformance
> ([DMARC])
>   o  DomainKeys ([DOMAINKEYS]) (Historic)
>   o  DomainKeys Identified Mail Signatures ([DKIM])
>   o  reverse IP address name validation ("iprev", defined in Section 3)
>   o  Require-Recipient-Valid-Since Header Field and SMTP Service Extension
>        ([RRVS])
>   o  SMTP Service Extension for Authentication ([AUTH])
>   o  Sender ID ([SENDERID]) (Experimental)
>   o  Sender Policy Framework ([SPF])
>   o  S/MIME Signature Verification [SMIME-REG]
>   o  Vouch By Reference ([VBR])
>
> None of these are marked deprecated in the registry:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml
>
> As a result, I don't think we should treat them differently in the text
> beyond
> noting the status of the relevant RFC.
>

Seems reasonable to me.  I'll do that in the next version, which I won't
submit until WGLC closes.

Tom is correct that the IANA Considerations section does update the
registries appropriately.

-MSK