Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-00

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:43:16 -0700

Almost nothing is at full standard.  Anything approved on the track is considered valid to call a standard.

"SM" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Barry,
>At 12:01 22-04-10, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>RFC 4871 is on the Standards Track, and there's no reason to avoid
>>referring to it as a "standard".  Why do you object to that?
>
>RFC 4871 may be on the Standards Track but it's not an Internet 
>Standard.  I don't think it's a good idea to refer to it as a 
>standard in a WG document.
>
>Regards,
>-sm 
>
>_______________________________________________
>marf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.