> On 21 Nov 2019, at 10:13, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would guess we can't rectify this oversight via the errata system. What > got IETF Review was the need for the registration, but not the registration > itself. > > I imagine this should either be done through DISPATCH (which is chartered to > do minor housekeeping things like this) or through an AD-sponsored document > that contains only the registration.
Right. If there is urgency in fixing this, I can also do an IESG management item to get IESG to approve the registration. > > -MSK > > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:37 AM Valery Smyslov <val...@smyslov.net> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this is an erratum reported by Scott Kitterman about the missing IANA >> registration item for DKIM in RFC8460. The chairs want to know the WG >> opinion on this. >> >> Regards, >> Valery (for the chairs) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:21 AM >> To: dmargo...@google.com; alex_brot...@comcast.com; prb...@yahoo.com; >> janet.jo...@microsoft.com; ris...@google.com; barryle...@computer.org; >> aamelni...@fastmail.fm; a...@nostrum.com; le...@sunet.se; val...@smyslov.net >> Cc: sc...@kitterman.com; uta@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8460 (5889) >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8460, "SMTP TLS >> Reporting". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5889 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Scott Kitterman <sc...@kitterman.com> >> >> Section: 6.7 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> Item is missing entirely >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> 6.7 DKIM Service Type >> >> This document registers a new DKIM Service Type in the DomainKeys Identified >> Mail (DKIM) Parameters registry: >> >> Service Type name: tlsrpt >> >> Reference: RFC 8460 >> >> Status Active >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The new service type is discussed in Section 3, so it should have been added >> to the registry. It's an IETF Review required registry, not Specification >> Required, so this can (and should) be addressed in terms at least of the >> registry now. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use >> "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a >> decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and >> edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC8460 (draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-23) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : SMTP TLS Reporting >> Publication Date : September 2018 >> Author(s) : D. Margolis, A. Brotman, B. Ramakrishnan, J. Jones, M. >> Risher >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Using TLS in Applications >> Area : Applications and Real-Time >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >>
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
