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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 13 May 2018 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 446EF127010 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=d5KOkjRX; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=iVTi+U+F
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 BeDH3m1bcPRm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960E7126D85 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76250 invoked from network); 13 May 2018 15:48:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=129d8.5af85e5c.k1805; bh=eoIYp1LgPRRItktwpEVYS2teLijtJrmCQxzuhJhDcVk=; b=d5KOkjRXzjCIATYGi3UByLyy+at9zLLufK76LAxvRWX96gaJIKjUNK9O8krLaGmnecvOgPcCUs+gobHDOVo/9l2dhq2xR9TSJzu0i2iwtIqjoBduqJUIOq6qUeKsilc9CUfHn7o3zIgJ1CgyJof+NEIFwhO4Rfs0EAIPvedGdTz/0xoOmR4tqXuAOd5VWp0O2HV/UzoVfNbJiWyiIbmVK9lEh9dLPxR87aVc9JRVd8bHTZ0v5r+KYzpKn05F/knE
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=129d8.5af85e5c.k1805; bh=eoIYp1LgPRRItktwpEVYS2teLijtJrmCQxzuhJhDcVk=; b=iVTi+U+F+BAjf48o4FILABwKlK+ttPfwafXewGeA4CqBzsoVA6BxvxhuUoLk7Schr8bc2ogsWZyd334GF3I+4yPhCOhRJKmzxgWz9iLN+xAbCufKti3UU5XUXrtfZQa5OpJ9Wf83PinQuNu1VbFy9/5GfeuIiLhs+FtoAHgh20UtyiGCDDFHoVfevJrGtLN9AosSOLpGgZMeqHL6FF8JntiuUdhhQ3KOo3pv/XnrJK432HheThntqjc4fFA2nVOo
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 13 May 2018 15:48:44 -0000
Date: 13 May 2018 11:48:44 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1805131138060.35762@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: "IETF general list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic
In-Reply-To: <7205525F3F11EFC1E2F915DA@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
References: <20180512230614.0909C267893F@ary.qy> <7205525F3F11EFC1E2F915DA@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MmS9ca3ER14nPphvgGa1bjNrlN0>
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 15:48:47 -0000

>> It's in RFC 6686, in the unlikely event that someone who cares
>> didn't already know the answer.
>
> Yeah, but, knowing that, my version of Scott's comment would
> have been only slightly different.   (Almost) too late now, but
> why wasn't this action taken as part of adopting 6686 and
> documented there?  If that was an inadvertent omission, ...

My recollection is that our focus was on getting SPF but not Sender-ID 
from experimental to standards track.  At the time I think there was still 
some grousing that sender-ID wasn't entirely dead, and I don't think 
anyone was willing to engage in another fight to move it to historic.

It does seem wrong that 6686 doesn't say that it obsoletes 4405-4407. 
Perhaps that's the erratum.  The experient is over, so there's nothing to 
move to historic.

R's,
Johj