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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 14 May 2018 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B47126BFD for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oh5XGYVRyqiZ for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F60124D6C for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n64-v6so9197615itb.3 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=TC5G+q4rr+bpiV8N5z62eNMN8XKRUHTSsH3+GHsYY2Y=; b=ue6BoZPPViXxmzqFfzahyTZElaKTt7wUJoXpyq9MQgIP4XvGXoJjJM7V+x7xH11ATR 2QcccJYYhaLwazbkX/PeqaCbiAPI6EXgUp8CLD9zx2x8h0+XXuqnJ5UEg47rNvrSicK0 DCIi47ombhKXQr/z/EAwmsIe3ZWCuhMNMuXMsA7JcrpIzOb07X8jVl+0dpbJNQaoFp4D 3T7XgsGyoJSmmdiecekk/Cyicb97H1UAgrxoIyCqfIHRlrMdKd37KVW0wi09JApPIHdj aKtLeiW+YOL+W9fM8SMDecsbXzxdRMVI3c8YZOvBDq1ki63L9M/My9WM/CTWklqWPUJ6 zRmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TC5G+q4rr+bpiV8N5z62eNMN8XKRUHTSsH3+GHsYY2Y=; b=V9vcqnlUft5HX5Ws7/74R7S/oC7HLnZVmZ55Rrs39QKfyH6NvViqHD380DcNjlDYAK WLU7nfqEixg/U7cZPtQPWkmtqp3tDjyCCUvt8cZ0TrqiiTb/gxWX3hh73LrOEW6ReVDi BW2RTSRtf2r7rIUSQJCRApYflhzezMjazJtRDB2ONEz6pArH+yj6/kKA9Z+c8uht1rQC dBYHSzPOTtLzlJTNKX+ehSWYufBHz5qEaBj6BrUJTVrNeN5eqCuDaeEhKYuXGfdJ92zo BIpYYuzqsuIUG2fQVOcskjInf+wrwB5aS8Nb81+9AJoSOGwJUehbA9ZkgWBNfGONUJBY hcrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcfhSwaa27Io3pa9TVC+YXbJjFkTZKaInNWJf1XMCUTzirUFqPr oCx92oW/bePb+zcwJROxQzThPBf7irGPSvKYi3sNzw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpz6YRg/nz/mP/UN1UodpTdhc0gF9tAA5ot7Vh5sYppA0X0aPxwQf3ZmcFSexK+mgSqcx5hHhw2B1nsPWl05sQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:ee8c:: with SMTP id b134-v6mr8793209iti.88.1526288060899; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 May 2018 01:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180514031854.ED51426858FB@ary.qy>
References: <> <20180514031854.ED51426858FB@ary.qy>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 04:54:20 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: s-q5BjUUChbxs6FhLCdb6PSsO8Q
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic
To: John Levine <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 08:54:24 -0000

Documents are obsoleted by other documents.
Protocols and technologies become historic by the fact that they're
not/no longer in use.
There is a difference between "obsolete" and "historic".  It makes
perfect sense to say that the technologies described in RFCs 4405-4407
are historic, as they're no longer in use; the fact that if was an
experimental technology isn't relevant to that.  And RFC 6686 did not
make that (Sender ID becoming historic) happen.

It's true that 6686 could have requested that the IESG change the
status of Sender ID to Historic.  It didn't.  And this situation is
exactly what the "status change" document set was created for: to
perform these sorts of status changes without having to publish new
RFCs.  There's no reason to use errata for this sort of thing.

We have what we need to do the right thing, and we're doing it.  Let's
not make it more complicated than it needs to be.


On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:18 PM, John Levine <> wrote:
> Those three RFCs are experimental, and RFC 6686 ended the experiment.
> I'm not sure what if anything an historic experiment means.
> I would suggest filing an erratum on 6686 so that it obsoletes
> 4405-4407 and leave it at that.  If we really want to make these three
> historic, file a further erratum on 6686 which should have have said
> so.
> R's,
> John
>>> The IESG has received a request from DMARC WG to make the
>>> following status changes:
>>> - RFC4405 from Experimental to Historic
>>>     (SMTP Service Extension for Indicating the Responsible Submitter of an
>>>     E-Mail Message)
>>> - RFC4406 from Experimental to Historic
>>>     (Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail)
>>> - RFC4407 from Experimental to Historic
>>>     (Purported Responsible Address in E-Mail Messages)
>>> The supporting document for this request can be found here:

Barry Leiba  (