IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 25 August 2011 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DE121F8C1A for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 3-4NLJqVd9EI for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F85E21F8C18 for <yam@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QwQsL-0000Mi-7q; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:04 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32BB211006850A7D2085F9E8@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <CAHhFybp6mvxqEyNoB4As2ryYhx+jV9EKodLRBUDwdQnJD0Ozrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110822174540.26398.33846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110823123557.0d863778@elandnews.com> <D41B604F-9452-4F9F-80BA-1FE5B74B171E@vigilsec.com> <9FF24CD8B21A5EAD6E856220@PST.JCK.COM> <01O58CRGKY1M00ZF4Y@mauve.mrochek.com> <DA27D32C2ACF5B84285B9BF3@PST.JCK.COM> <CAHhFyboozX0RgQe=n=jBx2y923VRSfig0KDg6wuy4Z0MS23y+A@mail.gmail.com> <35870B5079725979F2F0DF75@PST.JCK.COM> <CAHhFybp6mvxqEyNoB4As2ryYhx+jV9EKodLRBUDwdQnJD0Ozrw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:43:54 -0000

--On Thursday, August 25, 2011 02:35 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote:

>...
> Maybe I'll revive the GMX account where SPF FAIL works, or use
> @xyzzy.claranet.de again.  While we evaluate the last comma in
> present or absent references, somebody said that an informative
> RFC 5332 reference is no downref.  Checking RFC 4897 after Sam
> and you talked about it I found that nothing is wrong with the
> RFC 5332 downref note:
> 
> | At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached
> | to non-normative references.

And that is why 5322 was noted there... that and my expectation
that descendants of 5321 and 5322 would be published together,
just  as they and their predecessors were.  Not only can I not
predict the future accurately, I've done no analysis that would
permit me to reach a conclusion about what would happen if
4409bis were read in conjunction with a hypothetical 5321bis and
5322 or with 5322bis and 5321.  I've now gone back and checked
my notes (after removing the reference to 5322 from the list in
the working version of what will eventually become -03) and
including 5322 on the list was not an accident or an oversight
due to not noticing it wasn't normative.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email