Hi, I support to get 4409bis as STD, as already stated in <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.rfc822/11805/focus=5100>
The "bug" reported 59 months ago is not fixed in 4409bis, it is still "MAY add Sender", but I'm not more trying to "fix" other RFCs for SenderID. Folks here suggested to smuggle in an informative reference to RFC 6186. I've no problem with this subversive proposal, RFC 6186 is obviously "on topic", but I haven't checked it. For the similar to proposal to reference RFC 5451 I have a clear idea what it is about, but I don't see what it has to to with message *submission*. My favourite MISSREF would be RFC 5068, it might be one of the reasons why deployment of RFC 4409 increased in the last years, and that could be state in section 1.2. Actually the normative reference to RFC 4409 is the main point of RFC 5068 after some other points did not make it into this document. Free bonus: BCP 134 is no "downref". Unrelated, it is very good that folks here feel that they are at most two months away from "5321 to STD". Please go for it - it would be very silly to close a WG weeks before the most important IETF progress since STD 68 from my POV. I reserve the right to change my mind if "two months" is "USEFOR terminology" and actually means "5+ years"... ;-) -Frank _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
