Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CDF21F8BB1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX0YH3ybrRwe for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD1721F8BAE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [188.29.242.1] (188.29.242.1.threembb.co.uk [188.29.242.1]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TncqgAAZ1LIC@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:41:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4E772A7E.1090002@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:41:50 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <20110830041853.24036.37.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF99D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <C0FA01F1-E62B-41E1-9093-73E536AB666D@network-heretics.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFC44@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <83FC8B77-CD70-4A25-B639-86879F645DDB@network-heretics.com> <CAC4RtVBU-pszsVpKH0uFrynPtoZC4_-RoGcOT5XTeugEtRp7zg@mail.gmail.com> <4E74C13D.7080908@isode.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFCBC@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DFCBC@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:39:35 -0000

Hi Murray,

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
 [...]

>>   This memo removes that constraint.  No other changes apart from some
>>   editorial ones are made.  Other memos might update other documents to
>>   establish or clarify the constraint where it is more appropriate.
>>
>>I suggest changing "constraints" to "constraints on use of
>>multipart/report", as otherwise this is not very clear.
>>    
>>
>How about (pasting directly from the XML source):
>
>     <t> This memo removes that constraint.  No other changes apart
>         from some editorial ones are made.  Other memos might
>         update other documents to establish or clarify the
>         constraints on use of multipart/report in contexts where
>         such are needed. </t>
>  
>
Works for me.

>>3.  The multipart/report Media Type
>>
>>   1.  [REQUIRED] The first body part contains a human readable message.
>>       The purpose of this message is to provide an easily understood
>>       description of the condition(s) that caused the report to be
>>       generated, for a human reader who may not have a user agent
>>       capable of interpreting the second section of the multipart/
>>       report.  The text in the first section may be in any MIME
>>       standards-track media type, charset, or language.
>>
>>Is "standards-track" really intended here? This seems both overly restrictive
>>and not well specified (where can one find the list of *all* standards-
>>track media type, or more specifically how long it would take one to find
>>them all?). I suggest replacing with "registered" or "registered with IANA".
>>    
>>
>Works for me.  I just copied the text from the original here, but this change seems fine.
>  
>
Ok. I hope other WG participants have no objections to this change.