Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 12 December 2010 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DBF28C0E6 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:39:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.015
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZe0-Cah95PK for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD05428C0D7 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.59,332,1288569600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="15107511"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2010 16:40:48 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4641.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4641.cisco.com [10.61.82.32]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBCGel7F004241; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:40:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4D04FB1A.6030804@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:40:58 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "apps-review@ietf.org" <apps-review@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn@tools.ietf.org, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <4CFDDD2F.2020201@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CFDDD2F.2020201@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020207080800030402090202"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:39:14 -0000

I wrote:

On 12/7/10 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
> this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-01
> Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
> Reviewer: Eliot Lear
> Review Date: 7 Dec 2010
>

...

> More importantly, the specification makes use of the =/ operator  from
> RFC 5234, but for constructs that it does not control.  I don't know
> if this was the original intent or not, but I am a little concerned
> that use of =/ in a construct that is not wholly controlled by a
> single specification is asking for confusion later.  This is an
> optional specification, right?

After discussing this a bit with Dave Crocker, perhaps this problem is
all in my head.  Therefore, I recommend no change to the spec on this point.

Eliot