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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 20 June 2018 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D4D130F14; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=3/2kZ3Xj; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=npmK82NG
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vGhobNZDRVJs; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CFA130ED1; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5KLWu7T007665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1529530388; x=1529616788; bh=rMgaN6DBCDB9PSyk99iBV1kj2jdRMl+Z1eppryPc5Mg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3/2kZ3Xj7optpYgqKuHNM9IM1JofZkCvugqTlzENlvo6TyInlolq8bS18hO0J/qxf d5Iokf1T8lp9ccpTb18zifL3VYHjrepi4V43a6cudLtGMC3cEKbwRWURkEzU+xM2/W Z9ZtwtsABKLxc8o+POoAS7IZH7Ev6SfVyJU9Nq4g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1529530388; x=1529616788;; bh=rMgaN6DBCDB9PSyk99iBV1kj2jdRMl+Z1eppryPc5Mg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=npmK82NGa87zw6OinAevdZ33fOKpyhwoWlXmRFZiJB/FVRM/IRQNH8gEeUhF83vze hBy5iL1THi0n7P6buVQ5rxjdWNnGjzgfff2kHRj/ekTzMATXCvkUMWY8OCigRkjuqR rvbWEs/FaNOEBTENcD0Mv7eAxCKkdmTC8TbHIHPI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:32:41 -0700
To: John C Klensin <>,,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <>
In-Reply-To: <98F610E618E18B07B96C3BE8@PSB>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <98F610E618E18B07B96C3BE8@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:33:21 -0000

Hi John,
At 09:08 AM 20-06-2018, John C Klensin wrote:
>While I agree that adding a note is reasonable and that
>providing a reference to current status (as viewed from the
>IETF's perspective) is probably more so, I think "defeats the
>purpose" is wild hyperbole or worse.  There are actually two
>goals of this registry.  One is simply to avoid inadvertent name
>collisions and that certainly is not facilitated by hiding or
>dropping names unless we somehow want to encourage their reuse.

I did not suggest removing the entry as it might make it difficult 
for people to look up information about SMTP extensions.

>The other is to allow the client maintainers who see a service
>extension announcement (or server maintainers who, in violation
>of 5321, see a service extension request) to easily look that
>purported extension up and see what it is about.   Unless the


>IESG has a magic wand that will cause any and all uses of
>Sender-ID to disappear the instant that this action is taken, it
>is _very_ important that the registry entry remain and that it
>point to useful information, both about what Sender-ID is/was
>and why the IETF now claims it is Historic and, presumably, is
>making a "NOT RECOMMENDED" (see 2026) statement about it.


>At the risk of kicking a dead horse, the above is precisely why
>I prefer to see RFCs published to cover cases like this (as
>Applicability Statements for present or former standards track
>documents) rather than simple tracker notes.   I don't actually
>care about Sender-ID or friends.  The original documents were
>Experimental, an explanation has been published about why the
>experiment was concluded and these approaches were not viable,
>and, if the tracker note is sufficiently clear about why the
>action is being taken _and_ registries updated with appropriate
>"HISTORIC" and "don't use this" notations and references, I
>think this approach is probably ok (although not my first
>preference).   However, I recommend we use this discussion as
>motivation to discourage tracker-style reclassifications to
>Historic for standards-track documents when the intent is to
>convey a "don't start using this is you are not and, if you are,
>please start phasing it out" sort of recommendation.

Several years ago, there was a discussion about this experiment.  It 
was not viable to do the reclassification at that time.  I don't 
think that tracker-style reclassification is a good idea.  Anyway, 
you explained it better than I could.

>I think that section is irrelevant to this discussion except to
>the degree that it explains the reasons for having registry
>entries (and keeping them there and keeping them up to date).
>If someone thinks that is not explained adequately, please file
>an erratum -- I still assume that the time will come in which a
>replacement to 5321 will be appropriate and, while I'm keeping
>notes and a working version of a revision, relying entirely on
>that is probably not wise.

I am not inclined to file an erratum on this as it would be 
ill-thought-out. :-)

S. Moonesamy