Re: [Dcrup] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage

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

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The draft has been this way from the beginning, so I find it a bit
> surprising
> to see this in last call when you've reviewed this more than once before,
> but
> oh well.
>

I don't see why that's relevant, but OK:

The suggestion was made to me in person after the meeting in Prague, and
the more I think about it, the more I think it's worth the WG's
consideration.


> I updated the ABNF in the draft because I think if we are going to kill
> it, we
> should kill it absolutely dead.  What is the benefit of retaining obsolete
> features that are MUST NOT use in the ABNF?
>

I think the intent is to reject those signatures as no longer acceptable,
not render them syntactically invalid.

In terms of the structure of the draft, I wrote it this was so it's very
> clear
> what is being updated.  This has been discussed a bit, but I don't think
> anyone really objected so far.  I find it's common in IETF documents to see
> one document updates another, but then it's hard to really tell everything
> in
> the original document that's affected by the update.  This is an attempt
> to be
> clear about that.
>

You could do it either way, I suppose, but as I understand "updates" it
places an annotation on RFC6376 indicating that one really needs to read
this document after that one to fully read the state-of-the-art.  If that's
correct, then expressing a delta to the original spec is adequate to
achieve the goal rather than including an entire section of text with only
a few numbers adjusted.

Put simply, you can do either, but the more verbose approach seems like
overkill.

-MSK