Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt> (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On November 3, 2018 4:44:39 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:19 AM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>> As written, is it appropriate for this draft to obsolete RFC 7601? 
>Should
>> it
>> update it instead?
>>
>> In the Email Authentication Parameters registry [1] there are 63
>> parameters
>> that use RFC 7601 as the reference for their definition.  They are
>not
>> replicated in this document.
>>
>> As it stands, that would result in the registry using a historic
>document
>> for
>> definitions in an active registry.  Is that OK?
>>
>> Assuming it's not (because if it is, then there's no issue to
>discuss),
>> there
>> are two solutions I can suggest:
>>
>> 1.  Change this draft to update RFC 7601 rather than obsolete it.
>> 2.  Add the missing parameters from RFC 7601 to this draft and update
>the
>> registry entries to use it as the reference.
>>
>> I think the former is easier and the latter a bit cleaner for
>implementers
>> to
>> have fewer documents to sort through.  I don't have an opinion on
>which
>> would
>> be better.
>>
>
>Yeah, good catch.
>
>I'm inclined to change this to "updates" rather than "obsoletes".  It's
>otherwise a lot of stuff to copy over just for the sake of making
>keeping
>this as an omnibus document.  I'll do that unless someone makes an
>argument
>for the other choice.
>
>Are there any registry entries you think that should reference both
>documents?  IANA lets us do that for registrations for which an
>implementer
>should be pointed to more than one reference.

I don't think so.

Scott K