Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #50 (Remove ri= tag) - With Interim Notes

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:59 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It appears that Tim Wicinski  <[e-mail]> said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >All,
> >
> >This is the current text in Section 10.4 of dmarc-bis
> >
> >   Names of DMARC tags must be registered with IANA in this new sub-
> >   registry.  New entries are assigned only for values that have been
> >   documented in a manner that satisfies the terms of Specification
> >   Required, per [RFC8126].  Each registration must include the tag
> >   name; the specification that defines it; a brief description; and its
> >   status, which must be one of "current", "experimental", or
> >   "historic".  The Designated Expert needs to confirm that the provided
> >   specification adequately describes the new tag and clearly presents
> >   how it would be used within the DMARC context by Domain Owners and
> >   Mail Receivers.
> >
> >I don't believe we can actually remove said tag from the IANA registry,
> >but we can mark them as "historic", and remove the text from the
> >new document.
>
> Marking it "historic" seems appropriate, since that'll keep future versions
> of DMARC from using it for something else.
>
> --
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>

+1

Michael Hammer