Dave Crocker wrote: > What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational? > > I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that > was > not previously an IETF standard.
It's happened once before, somewhere in the 1xxx series. I forget which document, but it was recently discussed on what I believe was the IETF list, perhaps in one of the NEWTRK threads. > The usual means of labeling an RFC that > specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational. > I view this as a short cut to publish this first, then publish DKIM with the "Obsoletes:" header (and we should do both). > > >> The question: is it better for this document to be published as an >> historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM >> base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC >> editor's queuing discipline.) >> > > same time. we have enough confusion in the market, as it is. > Agree. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
