--On Thursday, August 25, 2011 02:35 +0200 Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>... > Maybe I'll revive the GMX account where SPF FAIL works, or use > @xyzzy.claranet.de again. While we evaluate the last comma in > present or absent references, somebody said that an informative > RFC 5332 reference is no downref. Checking RFC 4897 after Sam > and you talked about it I found that nothing is wrong with the > RFC 5332 downref note: > > | At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached > | to non-normative references. And that is why 5322 was noted there... that and my expectation that descendants of 5321 and 5322 would be published together, just as they and their predecessors were. Not only can I not predict the future accurately, I've done no analysis that would permit me to reach a conclusion about what would happen if 4409bis were read in conjunction with a hypothetical 5321bis and 5322 or with 5322bis and 5321. I've now gone back and checked my notes (after removing the reference to 5322 from the list in the working version of what will eventually become -03) and including 5322 on the list was not an accident or an oversight due to not noticing it wasn't normative. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
