On February 8, 2018 5:11:48 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, >> Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. >> >> Title : Message Header Field for Indicating Message >> Authentication Status >> Author : Murray S. Kucherawy >> Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00.txt >> Pages : 48 >> Date : 2018-02-07 >> >> Abstract: >> This document specifies a message header field called >Authentication- >> Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the >results >> of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, >such >> as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header >field >> to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to >users >> or to make sorting and filtering decisions. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ >> >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 >> > >Et voila. If you go to the "History" tab and request a diff from the >individual -00 to the working group -00, you can see all of the changes >made relative to RFC7601. Basically it loosens up the language about >what >categories of things can be recorded, makes the ABNF changes requested, >and >guts some stuff copied from RFC7601 that doesn't need to be there for >this >version because it describes registry changes that were already made by >that RFC. > >Let me know if I missed anything.
My recollection is that last time around for what became 7601, we collected all the Section 6 information into a single location since that would be the reference in the registry. It seems odd to me to carry a normative reference to historic RFCs, including the one that this obsoletes. Maybe it would be better to change this to updates 7601, rather than obsoletes. Then Section 6 turns into no IANA actions and there can be a single normative reference to 7601. As usual, I confess I don't always follow all the nuance of IETF specification management, so the above may be wrong, but I think the documents listed in the IANA registry as the reference should actually describe the relevant details. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
