IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Sun, 13 May 2018 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B29E124234 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aBgQFoTXvkMq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4E91200C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j4-v6so8081192wme.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KVOEhikOSywelnw/yQ4J9dA5QR7juB9arVauAHjCRCo=; b=JCh/nBT/bmDBhSxUaSokfR3vhD5LhfvG37XkhS/bYcbnrxcOYxAivU6NgKj7H85zKW oQsCUZx8Rhz+rwdjWbBnCTqvoh9Hp52C+p826cOJHg4cp6GYWJBiBmjHC7ynOH52bdWf R5GePfBmX/avJO/O2t1DkKAxwzp7gzZsxIlXw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KVOEhikOSywelnw/yQ4J9dA5QR7juB9arVauAHjCRCo=; b=WxeTIN9fTI45NB0ANWnZuyuLXOwYmN7EkicpMuWRndjEm73uxrPY4VpN0XjUY1N0h7 QlqxM0D9Rx0gfFgu3RN7UcfMnitPXNKRAsmBR7q7Gces1Y35IStXKrevZZZ2WS1i1x3Z lmC1SlgJZTeWwpVN0/Nw8iFVv5JGsHeyCf6RuQ7BVw97KsfMOFDX87bRHsQWmWkQicMZ HSJaf0KYK/iZ/VjM1PQHXMkJayfM3miZPkLvh1+4SS3rDKcue5ltJO+esMLrT/k91fOT uMk6ojrQqiZnCVE5+u9jttD9TrxZ+AE7Qtfh5UM6fy0KEUpxPBhOUHesaCoueLhTQLNR CjXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcBC1OOvNRuJmPQ0KELaodsgxhbHc0H7YK6FDIj+Wd+R/Q3VXEJ lwcB6Yhzr5sbZRnUTjE7vbgMrsj8ZNRud5U5ZLXMOZ+8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrbYdtbn5KtI3q48Gg0XqROoD8ODsmQFuDGH4RkDzbvZjrrNfeLpGQCVFPYwTntAdo3Vif6TnHMsS01X7QOktg=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9ae1:: with SMTP id p88-v6mr5831287edb.20.1526180274248; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.142.201 with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180512230614.0909C267893F@ary.qy>
References: <7FEC3265-C38B-4BB0-91C4-4F6990D00DA4@sobco.com> <20180512230614.0909C267893F@ary.qy>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1rh5fYwrYqCTCAZYBtEmLvS4TnzQvffZfWJCf5kJNpjiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001c2d47056c0d8986"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CQy5UA427g6tRMMbMq__nJ-Q8Ks>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 02:57:58 -0000

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:06 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <7FEC3265-C38B-4BB0-91C4-4F6990D00DA4@sobco.com> you write:
> >I would sure rather the justification were published as an RFC so people
> can find the reasons in the future
>
> It's in RFC 6686, in the unlikely event that someone who cares didn't
> already know the answer.
>

And apparently the process for "moving to historic" does not involve an RFC
per se. There is a separate document covering the reason for the
deprecation.

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email