We actually don't need an I-D for this, and I think we should not use one. I propose the following text in a status-change document that covers all three RFCs 4405, 4406, 4407:
<< In 2006, two experiments were started for email authentication: Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC 4408) and Sender ID (RFC 4406, supported by RFCs 4405 and 4407). After eight years of experimental data (RFC 6686), it was clear that SPF remained in widespread use while Sender ID did not. RFC 7208 moved SPF from Experimental status to Proposed Standard. This document acknowledges that Sender ID did not pass its experiment, and changes the status of RFCs 4405, 4406, and 4407 to Historic. >> Alexey, will you create a status-change document with that? And then we'll just let Kurt's draft expire. There's no reason to publish an RFC here. Barry On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote: > On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >>> I have now posted >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this >>> task. >>> >>> Please let me know if that fits the bill. >> >> Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document >> like this one. AD sponsored? > > Yes. > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-smtp mailing list > ietf-s...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
