Hi Frank,
At 16:50 16-08-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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.
I missed the "bug" and it was unfortunately not brought up during the
discussion of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis. One of the authors, John
Klensin, responded to your message on September 28, 2006. My reading
of the reply is that it imposes additional requirements. If the
conclusion is incorrect, please send a message with suggested text
and rationale so that the working group can comment.
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.
See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68465.html
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".
Section 1.2 will be removed before publication.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
