Re: [apps-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 04 January 2012 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941CA11E8093 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:35:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJkeffidUUGJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E1911E808D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q040ZRec028597 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:35:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1325637331; i=@resistor.net; bh=M/8xZ4gRwZvm8SesRf8zFtg5xWlQ5XJxxITINFMpuG4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=GsIIp0Ki5oXXS2fgwpC5Nr1exIM2LysHnDVkyF9atTuXCbV6rzEn5xE0wNUJ9qO1w ODWCzGjdL05bQc3ZvNzDO8j2bNkVOEG/OMvHgDGZQYYld7CWU2Xv7BLn0PVpnGjuBp jyhM7vR7L1mdxYDrlyodp6/sYoMqc1zj85LD2Md8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120103161311.08dfa958@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:23:02 -0800
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C156E3@EXCH-C2.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C156DF@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120103145134.099ad970@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C156E3@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:35:35 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 15:58 03-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>It is not dependent on 4408bis.  The update is correct whether or 
>not that ever publishes.

Could the update wait until 4408bis is done?

>Where?

There is an existing effort to revise RFC 4408.

>There's no 5451bis effort afoot that I know of.

Don't tempt me. :-)

Regards,
-sm