Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-39: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (same ballot for -38 and -39) ** 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (revised ballot for -39) Thank you to Ines Robles for the GENART review. Thank you for addressing my COMMENT feedback. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
