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 5:18:19 AM UTC, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>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

For avoidance of doubt, draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04 has been posted.  It resolves my concern.

Scott K