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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 7A23511E809D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:57:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, 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 cEzIVRMWXlVE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA93911E807F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0IJvKTs007207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:57:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1326916651; i=@elandsys.com; bh=8cGAWtx80wnTLdzxBHLLMjs9A9RcHWQn6qSyXEXAXGw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=DyCzOtkXiXk0zyIz2inVKcw1Z0C91laQq3BqipWfKK8BZNrLzkEpjV2bAB351nWG6 EuX5MYgmvr0mM99CGrknDP5PUQI2S2sNQJ5b9GMdreyW5B8Or/GtvbYr+ClyqQ8woY RrBTxoHC6tcWLp/Qf7hvJ1ZVyAe8r7x2XfSyR+0s=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326916651; i=@elandsys.com; bh=8cGAWtx80wnTLdzxBHLLMjs9A9RcHWQn6qSyXEXAXGw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=CwHRZCftjBEcFRjF1hn06JfrlDwTUJ9gJ++ZXOFjbA9gsou7lRPP+imIqSn/x+Zb3 5TO21UG/meTZO/Uf/NxVwqBmwGPBxGLKY4Jq0dMfE3UjBb1eIYLquBXoJCynA3b1Ya yPOWuB3e7/f3/zYLTM0/Uyn9H5Ye5o7Y9EEmdTMs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120118111712.0961dda8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:57:12 -0800
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158EA@EXCH-C2.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120105165019.063fa0a8@resistor.net> <20120106063934.80082.qmail@joyce.lan> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1578F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120108011725.0bfaf2b8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120118080640.097bb400@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C158EA@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
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-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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:57:38 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 10:47 18-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Sounds like a good step forward.

Thanks.

>One thing I might suggest including, either in the Abstract, 
>Introduction or an Appendix, is an explanation of why this is being 
>reissued.  In particular, you've said your main impetus for doing 
>this is the URL-URI evolution, so I imagine it would be helpful to 
>highlight that in some way.

I changed the first paragraph of the Introduction Section as follows:

    RFC 2369 [RFC2369] defined additional header fields to be added to
    email messages sent by mailing list managers (MLMs).  The significant
    change in this document is the use of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
    [RFC3986], instead of Uniform Resource Locator (URL), allowing an
    implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without
    knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier.
    The content of  each new header field is typically a URI  - usually
    "mailto" [RFC6068] - which identifies the relevant information or
    performs the command directly.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy