Eric Allman wrote:
s/Permanent Header Messages/Permanent Header Fields [RFC 3864]/
and add [RFC 3864] to the informative references, see also
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers/33>
Good idea.
Thanks. I'm still trying to convince IANA that they need to update
their Web pages for the header registry, and apparently IANA still
tries to convince the IESG that they need to appoint an expert for
the message header field review list, so it's not yet hopeless. ;->
[SHOULD NOT reject]
This has been in pretty much since the beginning
Sorry, I saw it in an rfcdiff, but the diffs for chapters 4 up to 8
are a bit confusing.
That could be because no one has thought about it before
In my case IIRC "hasn't noted it before".
BTW, in a similar direction, do you intentionally use [SHA] without
(or instead of) [RFC 4634] as normative reference for SHA-256 ?
RFC 4634 also covers SHA-1. If you don't list RFC 4634 because the
license isn't exactly clear then RFC 3174 could do for SHA-1. Both
RFCs are informational, but it's probably already accepted that they
don't need a special "downref" procedure anymore.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html