Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 19 April 2011 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE33E0655 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4ZmCtpPEPin for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8600EE0665 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3J7iWZg021691; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:44:42 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1303199085; bh=YCo5SfXArzATZgtMjpp1A64c7bs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VazT5g91TY+fzJzTm0SyeRaSneRrTKE1rBZnh/p6Ps5ODB91kPdaLDaQofPLlqufw Z43o5GlE29sgxGHiQC+s/DmaCLMHV7be0kdPHbvojBSTARXtmJMzMeVozo7FImtGR5 BSAZoAO7tToAWlr35+nW9R707Jf/AMK0cQJ4hPlc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:41:30 -0700
To: David Singer <>, Randall Gellens <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <p06240624c9d0cd69eff3@[]> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Per Frojdh <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:44:50 -0000

Hi David,
At 11:36 18-04-2011, David Singer wrote:
>I agree, I think it best if capitalized verbs are used for 
>requirements expressed in the document. So I would not capitalize 
>'requires' in this case, but it's OK by me.

Randy commented on this in another message.  The "requires" should be 
clear enough.

>Existing text from 4281.  Can I have  MUST in a 'Note' 
>sentence?  Most bodies don't allow that.  I think that the 'Note 
>that,' should go:
>When the [RFC2231] form is used, the percent
>    sign, asterisk, and single quote characters have special meaning and
>    so MUST themselves be encoded.

I have seen "MUST" used in "Note" sentences in other RFCs.  You 
already had similar text in the RFC published in 2005.  As it hasn't 
been a problem, I don't see why it should be a problem now.

By the way, I gave an "almost ready for publication" rating as the 
document state is "Publication Requested" and the authors already 
know how to address editorial nits.

S. Moonesamy