On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 10:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed 07/Aug/2019 17:16:29 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > >> >> If the definition of ptype smtp were "a parameter of the SMTP session >> used >> >> to relay the message" it would be perfect. I'd propose that >> policy.iprev >> >> be deprecated and smtp.remote-ip used instead>> >> > >> > Given that RFC8601 was published just last month, it'll probably be a >> while >> > before this happens. >> >> Wouldn't an accepted erratum be enough to change the wording in the IANA >> page? >> > > That's not what the RFC Editor erratum system is for. The document > reflects what the WG intended to publish at the time, so this isn't an > erratum, it's a new change to the specification. > Just to be clear: The policy for changes to that registry is "Expert Review", but since the action that put it there was a document with IETF consensus, I'm pretty hesitant about just approving this change based on a formal request. I'd rather at least see some consensus discussion about it, or even better, a revision/update to RFC8601. -MSK, this time as DE
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
