> > In any case, I've now posted a revised version that incorporates all of
> > these
> > changes.
> Thanks Ned, that looks good to me. (In the event that 2821bis is
> approved in time, the RFC Editor could update the citation of
> 2821. But that seems to be a slightly more controversial Last Call.)
Noticed that did you? I normally try hard to cite the latest versions even when
they're in draft. But I'm getting really worried that we're going to hit some
kind of impasse on 2821bis so I checked and made sure the IPv6 stuff in it was
sound, and cited it instead.
Ned
P.S. "slightly"?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
