aamelnikov
commented
1 year ago Summary of current registration procedures for remaining registries:
8.1.2. Address Literal Tags
Additional literal types require standardization before being used; none are anticipated at this time.
-- Alexey: not very specific
8.1.3. Mail Transmission Types
The third, "Mail Transmission Types" [58], established by RFC 821 and renewed by this specification, is a registry of link and protocol identifiers to be used with the "via" and "with" subclauses of the time stamp ("Received:" header field) described in Section 4.4. Link and protocol identifiers in addition to those specified in this document may be registered only by standardization or by way of an RFC-documented, IESG-approved, Experimental protocol extension.
8.1.4. Additional Registered Clauses
As mentioned in Section 4.4.1 above, additional clauses for the "Received:" header field may be added by future standards track specifications.
-- Alexey: the above is not fully consistent with what follows:
Additional clauses may be registered only by standardization or by way of an RFC-documented, IESG-approved, Experimental protocol extension.
klensin
John Klensin wrote:
The WG decided to shift the registration model for Service Extensions from "Standards Track or IESG-approved Experimental" to "Specification Required". No decisions have been made yet about other mail-related registries established by this document in Section 8.1. They will be left unchanged, and this item closed unless other decisions are made, presumably before IETF 115. Probably ready to close.