On 12.08.2011 21:02, Martin Rex wrote:
On 8/11/2011 9:37 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to
consider the following document:
- 'Message Submission for Mail'
<draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> as a Full Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I'm wondering wheter there should be an informative reference to rfc6186.
This question was one of two points raised during WGLC by Derek Diget
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00615.html
It was decided that the current deployment of SRV doesn't quite justify
supporting it in a Full Standard document.
I really wish it were otherwise, but I find myself having to agree with this
assessment. It would be a different thing if this was just now coming up for
approval at proposed, but we're way past that.
and I am concerned about the security mess around SMTP-AUTH (rfc4954)
(for which this document is not responsible, but which it also
does not mention).
This question was raised by Chris Newman on Fri, 30 Apr 2010.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00420.html
There was a somewhat deeper discussion, but the conclusion was the same as
yours, namely that it's not the responsibility of 4409bis, and that
it would be a serious mistake to clutter 4409bis up with some of the
details that have been suggested. Even at full standard, authentication
details are best incorporated by reference to other documents than can be
updated when or as necessary.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00434.html
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf