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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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.