> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John C > Klensin > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:00 AM > To: Alessandro Vesely; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yam] WGLC: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00 > > > Thus, if at all, it may be worth mentioning that the relevant > > /propspec/ may be omitted for the same reason. That is, e.g., > > > > Authentication-Results: example.com; > > auth=pass (details omitted as precautionary measure); > > Because "Authentication-Results:" is not a 4409 field, it seems > to me that this is a problem that needs to be addressed in > 5451bis or elsewhere, not here.
I agree, there's no need to recycle 4409 for this. Section 8 lists changes that have been observed as useful in the past, but don't establish SHOULDs or MUSTs around any of them (except Message-Id, which makes sense anyway since 5322 SHOULDs it), so it's largely advice and not normative. If there are sites that actually do this, I'd be happy to support the work of a 5451bis that updates 5451 in this way, and perhaps updates 4409bis as well. If it's just an idea, though, we can queue it up for later, such as whenever there are enough errata to fix it up. _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
