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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:49 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00.txt
> 
> >> Editorial nit section 2: s/BCP 14/RFC 2119/, a new BCP 14
> >> could be different, and RFC 2119 suggests to write RFC 2119.
> 
> > The RFC Editor will update the references if they change
> > between now and when this actually gets published. This is
> > pretty standard boilerplate.
> 
> The problem isn't a new 2119bis published before 3462bis, but
> a new BCP 14 published after 3462bis with incompatible terms.

Ah, I see what you mean.  I'll take that out.

> The "header contains all header fields" is not a verbatim copy,

RFC3462:
   The Text/RFC822-Headers body part should contain all the RFC822
   header lines from the message which caused the report.  The RFC822
   headers include all lines prior to the blank line in the message.
   They include the MIME-Version and MIME Content-Headers.

This one:
   The text/rfc822-headers body part SHOULD contain all the mail header
   fields from the message that caused the report.  The header includes
   all header fields prior to the first blank line in the message.  They
   include the MIME-Version and MIME content description fields.

There's a slight update to use the current preferred language (header fields instead of header lines, for example), but it's otherwise the same.

The first paragraph of the same section makes a specific reference to RFC5322 (as "[MAIL]").

I'm happy to make a change if it actually clarifies something, but if there isn't evidence that people are confused by the current text then I'd prefer to keep further text changes to a minimum.

> NAK, there are two procedures, one old and horrible, and the new
> and painless RFC 4897 procedure.  For an application of the new
> procedure compare:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02#appendix-B>

I guess the co-chairs or the ADs should weigh in on which of these they prefer.

-MSK