On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2019 10:06:02 AM Kurt Andersen wrote: > > 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.
I think removing them from 7601bis != removing them from the IANA registry. > So far we have not removed any registry entries, only marked them deprecated > (domainkeys for example). I don't think there's any particular rush to start > now. Entries should never be removed from an IANA registry, as this would defeat one purpose of having a registry. They can only be marked historic/deprecated/obsolete, as appropriate for the registry. Best Regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
