On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On January 14, 2019 3:02:01 PM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 AM Murray S. Kucherawy > ><[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:03 AM Scott Kitterman > ><[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > I see sender-id still has full citizenship. Now I'm not clear > >which > >>> will be > >>> > first, but my feeling is that rfc7601bis and > >>> > status-change-change-sender-id-to-historic are going to be > >published > >>> more or > >>> > less at the same time. > >>> > > >>> > When a method is moved to historic, are the corresponding > >parameters in > >>> the > >>> > IANA registry moved to deprecated? If yes, should the move be > >stated by > >>> > which document? > >>> > >>> A quick look at Domainkeys in the registry and RFC 7601 will answer > >that > >>> question for you. Let's not hold this up. > >>> > >> > >> +1. This was not identified in IESG Review as something that needs > >fixing > >> so I'd just as soon not make more changes now. If we keep changing > >it, > >> it's going to need another cycle through the working group. > >> > > > >I had flagged the lack of deprecating Sender ID in my notes to Murray. > >Since he did not comment back on that, I had assumed he was good with > >ripping it all out (or marking it as obsolete). > > The registry update policy is expert review. We won't need another RFC to > deprecate Sender ID when the time comes. > Understood, but I was thinking that cutting Sender ID mostly out of 7601bis would be appropriate. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
