[rfc-i] <referencegroup> feedback
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Apr 27 07:39:05 PDT 2016
On 26 Apr 2016, at 22:12, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-04-27 00:44, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2016, at 18:50, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>> I was going back through things and was wondering if this was ever
>>> or was just ignored.
>>> I have a situation in a document that I am working on where I would
>>> something better than what I currently have. I am currently doing
>>> [SMIMEv3.2] "S/MIME version 3.2".
>>> This group of documents represents S/MIME version 3.2.
>>> This set of documents are [RFC2634], [RFC5750],
>>> [RFC5652], and [RFC5035].
>>> And I really was looking for something that had the title and then
>>> documents listed as part of the overall group reference, but that is
>>> currently doable with the current grammar. I would just need to
>>> what I
>>> currently have with the double indirect.
>> This is not planned for the v3 format. <referencegroup> is meant to
>> a group anchor, not a group title nor a group description. Part of
>> reasoning I had for this limitation is that people who want to
>> or describe a particular reference might start futzing with
>> <referencegroup> in order to get that functionality.
>> You have a reasonable desire, but I don't think it will get added
>> time around.
> Well, it fails to generate the STD format mentioned in RFC 7322, so I
> think it needs more work...
I agree it would need more work if that's true, but I don't see where it
doesn't. Can you give me a v3 code example where it doesn't?
More information about the rfc-interest