william(at)elan.net wrote:
[...]
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05774.html
Yes, that was a very good article.
incompatible with RFC2822
I'm still a bit lost how this could actually _break_ something.
For obvious reasons the author can't say "updates 2822", how
should he fix it ? As you said the 822 issue is mentioned in
the senderid-pra draft.
Do you want more "security considerations", something along
the line of "PRA-participants agree to break an explicit MUST
in 2822" ?
I disagree that it should be ignored quite so easily because
RFC822 is still listed as Internet Standard where as RFC2822
is just Proposed Standard.
Touché. OTOH the author isn't responsible for this "detail" -
in the spirit of TINW (for an IETF-we) it's "our" fault. Bye.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf