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(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)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-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp