Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822

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.

Touch=E9.  OTOH the author isn't responsible for this "detail" -
in the spirit of TINW (for an IETF-we) it's "our" fault.  Bye.