Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt> (DKIM Authorized Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 11/30/2011 1:03 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> In plain English, this reads as an update of ADSP but this draft does not
>> >  update RFC 5617.
> It does not.  There's no reason that anyone implementing ADSP need pay
> attention to this.*IF*  you implement this, it might change your
> behaviour with respect to ADSP, but information about that is
> contained here.  There's no reason for this to "update" 5617 in the
> IETF sense.


I think Barry's characterization is correct.  The word "update" can have some 
different uses in this realm.

In IETF RFC formal lingo, I believe "update" means that the new spec is 
modifying the core document.  It really is, therefore, to be taken as part of 
that core document's text.

In a very different sense, some specification provide optional value-add to a 
core spec.  Using that enhancement is optional; so it's no part of the core. 
However, if one chooses to use the enhancement, then yes the enhancements 
"updates" some aspect of the core.

I believe that ATPS is the latter form of update to DKIM and ADSP.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net