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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 8, 2015 1:07:04 PM EDT, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>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.

Great. Given that, it might also warrant a sentence along the lines of "Methods marked as historic are deprecated in this update".

Scott K