RE: RFC 4291
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFB71@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] RFC 4291 > > My initial reaction is to update the reference and not touch the text from > 4408. You can't implement IPv6 address parsing without understanding how it > works and 4408bis is not the place to explain it. We don't treat 169.254.x.x > specially for IPv4, so I don't think we need to deal with "well-known prefix" > specially either. Much as I hate "me too" emails: Me too. -MSK