[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues? #10 section 7 IANA
tony at att.com
Wed Apr 19 15:27:39 PDT 2006
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> In section 7, it says:
>> 7. IANA Considerations
>> Following the policies outlined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], names of
>> sender authentication methods supported by this specification must be
>> registered with IANA under the IETF Consensus method, with the excep-
>> tion of experimental names as defined above.
>> This needs to be beefed up more. What's the registry look like? There
>> should be specific recommendations on the information that a document
>> associated with an authentication method needs to provide. Obviously
>> there's the name of the authentication method. How about the ptype
>> values appropriate for this method? Or the property values that are
>> appropriate for this method?
> Is there a good example of an RFC that provides everything IANA wants?
> You're not the first person to say that this section is insufficient,
> but I don't know what sort of thing they need other than a sentence
> reserving this header's name in their official list of headers. As I
> recall, the I-D HowTo document only says that this section should be
> there, and should indicate which registration method should be used,
> which is what I did.
Start with RFCs 2434 and 3692. Then go to the update to 2434,
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-04.txt. Then take a look at
some RFCs that specify registration procedures. Some that I've been
involved in that I think have decent IANA Considerations sections are
RFC 4395, 3887 and 3798.
tony at att.com
More information about the mail-vet-discuss