Would something like the following, where I make it explicit that current/experimental/historic refers to the status of the tag, address this point?
Names of DMARC tags used in DMARC Policy Records are registered with IANA in this registry. Entries are assigned only for values that have been documented in a manner that satisfies the terms of Specification Required, per [RFC8126]. Each registration includes the tag name; the specification that defines the tag; the status of the tag, which is one of "current", "experimental", or "historic"; and a brief description of the tag. The Designated Expert needs to confirm that the provided specification adequately describes the tag and clearly presents how it would be used within the DMARC context by Domain Owners and Mail Receivers. On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 5:42 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Todd Herr Some Guy in VA LLC [email protected] 703-220-4153 Book Time With Me: https://calendar.app.google/tGDuDzbThBdTp3Wx8
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
