The field isn’t meant to apply to any document, but to the tag that is registered in that entry. It’s the state of that tag: in current use, in experimental use, or historic (no longer in use).
This sort of thing has been in a number of other registries, has been clearly understood, and as far as I know, hasn’t been (and hasn’t needed to be) formally defined. We could write text, but it would say something like, “ ‘current’ means the tag is in current use,” and such, and would be of no practical value. Barry On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 5:17 PM Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Todd! > > > > *From:* Todd Herr <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 8, 2025 2:44 PM > *To:* Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > *Cc:* The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-38: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > *Warning:* External Sender - do not click links or open attachments > unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:03 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ** Section 9.3. and 9.4. Status column > > -- Section 9.3 “Each registration includes the tag name; the specification > that > defines it; a brief description; and its status, which is one of "current", > "experimental", or "historic".” > > -- Section 9.4 “In addition to a reference to a permanent specification, > each > registration includes the format name, a brief description, and its > status, > which must be one of "current", "experimental", or "historic".” > > The status column was defined in RFC7489 and already in the existing IANA > registries. However, there doesn't appear to be adequate guidance on > setting > and using it. Specifically: > > (1) What are the criteria used to set a particular code point to “current”, > “experimental” or “historical” status? There is no guidance for the > designated > expert. > > It can’t be the status of a given RFC since the registration procedure is > “specification required” allowing for non-RFC documents. Section 9.3 > appears > to be updating the registry to amend existing code points to historic > status > (e.g., pct, rf, ri) so the WG must have some intuition that would benefit > from > being document here. > > (2) What does experimental or historic signal to implementers? What do > they do > with this information? > > > > Roman, > > > > As co-editor, let me first thank you for taking the time to review and > comment. > > > > As we work to produce a new draft in response to your and other reviews, > we find ourselves struggling to come up with definitions of these terms. We > believe them to be in common, widespread use in the context they're used > here, but we can't off the tops of our heads think of RFCs that have > defined them. > > > > Can you please point us to an example RFC or two that has definitions for > the criteria used for these terms? > > > [Roman] Are “experimental”, “historic”, etc meant to imply the > “status”/track of the RFC. If so, Section 4 or 5 of RFC2026 defines those > formally. > > > > [Roman] Note my comment above that “Specification Required” would allow > for documents which aren’t RFC. As such, those status/track designations > would not be meaningful. > > > > Regards, > > Roman >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
