On 7/21/2014 10:44 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Dave,
At 06:59 21-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
Really???
Yes.
The sentence is factually incorrect, about basic matters of SPF and
DKIM, and these matters are commonly misrepresented and understood.
In other words, the fact that an IETF standards track document is
mischaracterizing important bits of technology is problematic to a
meaningful level.
It is one sentence and it starts with "Recent work" and provides two
Informative references. There were significant issues with those bits
of technologies. RFC 5321 does not say anything about that.
SM,
Sorry, but I'm confused again.
While yes, the references are informative, the sentence that uses them
is fundamentally incorrect, and ways that matter. As for 'issues with
those bits of technologies', I'm not sure what you mean or how it is
relevant here.
The question is whether to retain the current language, replace it, or
drop it.
Given the problems with the existing text, I am not understanding your
basis for suggesting its retention.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp