On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> > 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.
R
William,
We will consider this together with the other appeal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Hello Brian,
With IESG already consideri
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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
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 fi
Hello Brian,
With IESG already considering other issues with publication of
draft-lyon-senderid-core as experimental RFC, I'd like to request it
also formerly consider and make determination in regards to issues
raised at the very end of MARID regarding use of Resent- header fields
by draft-ly
