On November 3, 2018 3:25:15 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:03 PM Alexey Melnikov
><[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> 1) I am not sure that deleted IANA registry descriptions (when
>compared
>> to RFC 7601) is the best way, considering that this document
>obsoletes
>> RFC 7601. I think it would be better to just keep the text and add a
>> sentence saying that it is unchanged from RFC 7601. But I am happy to
>> hear what IESG has to say about this.
>>
>
>Sorry, what's being deleted? RFC7601bis doesn't (shouldn't!) be
>deleting
>anything; it adds a couple of entries and makes itself authoritative
>for
>the registration of the header field, but otherwise nothing is
>changing. I
>thought that was pretty explicit.
What should the reference be in the registry for the existing entries? RFC7601
will be historic, so that hardly seems right and they aren't listed in 7601bis
so that doesn't work either.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
