On 12.08.2011 21:02, Martin Rex wrote: > On 8/11/2011 9:37 AM, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to >> consider the following document: >> - 'Message Submission for Mail' >> <draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> as a Full Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > I'm wondering wheter there should be an informative reference to rfc6186. This question was one of two points raised during WGLC by Derek Diget http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00615.html It was decided that the current deployment of SRV doesn't quite justify supporting it in a Full Standard document. > and I am concerned about the security mess around SMTP-AUTH (rfc4954) > (for which this document is not responsible, but which it also > does not mention). This question was raised by Chris Newman on Fri, 30 Apr 2010. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00420.html There was a somewhat deeper discussion, but the conclusion was the same as yours, namely that it's not the responsibility of 4409bis, and that it would be a serious mistake to clutter 4409bis up with some of the details that have been suggested. Even at full standard, authentication details are best incorporated by reference to other documents than can be updated when or as necessary. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00434.html hth _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf