Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 18 January 2012 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F7F21F84BD for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.622
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TIOJ9MnCo-DQ for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B2821F84C2 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0IHKdlq019229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:21:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1326907275;; bh=+JnJ+enxwPr4Fu4PMiS6c9wc0MYB24UnxMzVFfHFw6Q=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=AMEyGRsSISP9biWcG4mYrw4OwrNX1MZJdYFoAixmAQcD/RD2WMIUN6929WDKOOMvF TNfoPesAEw02WpuVi9LsqC1jNxxy1019J8PJDBMxW6rqTYa0psCj0xleO2PIgqTepz 0aVA8MghG+FTsPg4Ly850WkmMQOkEtBt9Vmz5o80=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1326907275;; bh=+JnJ+enxwPr4Fu4PMiS6c9wc0MYB24UnxMzVFfHFw6Q=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=175vSzsKF+bCiDUEsB4kkaU+h719L2b5xkGvftpGbQp91S/9sO79HpJ1hiCFaBSJF HoYFyOSZYQln1nusLQdip/IWg/qgz5puSro56FHolJaoa68ZvoOcZtTMB6i3ETU7yg xAocAV4Lf33GK7glXtExSFjc6m0UkT/yW97N2lMs=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:16:15 -0800
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20120106063934.80082.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:21:25 -0000


I plan to submit draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-02 today.  The list of 
changes from -01 are:

    o  Added ABNF and reference to RFC 5234
    o  Removed text about postmaster in List-Owner Section
    o  Removed User Interface guidelines from Appendix B
    o  Removed SHOULD include a "mailto" based command in Section 3
    o  Modified the text to first paragraph of Section 3.1

Thanks to Mykyta Yevstifeye, Murray S. Kucherawy and John Levine for 
feedback.  I'll summarize the comments.  As usual, if I misunderstood 
anything you said, please email me.

I added "List-Sequence" in the Abstract Section as Mykyta suggested 
[1] and added the IANA registration.  I included the ABNF he 
suggested and some editorial changes (mailto).

Murray suggested [2] including ABNF.  As he commented on the language 
at the top of 3.1 sounding vaguely like a minimum compliance 
statement, I modified the text.  The suggestion to use "postmaster" 
in Section 3.5 of draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 has been 
removed.  The Client Implementation appendix has been removed as John 
Levine also commented on not providing UI guidance.  I have not added 
a reference to draft-gregorio-uritemplate (values expanded by MUA).

John Levine suggested [3] not providing MUA user interface design 
advice.  Appendix B has been removed.  I removed the text that 
sounded like the "the constant harping to use mailto:".  I kept 
Section 4 about Nested lists.

Murray also mentioned having some text in the Security Considerations 
Section to recommend that MUAs should not generate the header 
fields.  I didn't make that change as there is already a 
recommendation in the second paragraph of Section 3.

S. Moonesamy