On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:03 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't understand why this document is tagged as an Update to RFC7601 and > not > as Obsoleting it. This change was made between the -03 (which was the one > in > the IETF LC) and the -04 (current) versions. > There are some things in this document that are not copied from RFC7601, which means obsoleting RFC7601 rather than updating it would leave various IANA registry entries pointing at a dead document. I note that this point was brought up during both the AD Review [1] and the > IETF LC [2], which is why I'm not balloting DISCUSS. However, I think > that the > solution (Updating instead of Obsoleting) is not the correct one. > The change to "Updates" rather than "Obsoletes" was done as a result of those same review comments, most notably the second citation you offered. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
