Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 F388321F8549 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EYqX0aIsw9IG for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB7D21F8514 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail23-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.244) by DB3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.3.84.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:36 +0000
Received: from mail23-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail23-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD566013B; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -34
X-BigFish: PS-34(zz9371I936eK542M1432N98dKzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839hd24hf0ah304l)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.224.141; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0702HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail23-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail23-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1337680354226713_4177; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.245]) by mail23-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2901CC004F; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3PRD0702HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.55.224.141) by DB3EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (10.3.87.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:33 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0410HT005.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.85) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.3.4.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.15.74.2; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:46 +0000
Message-ID: <024701cd3800$4104c700$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com><CALaySJJ_VHpJwK1ooGPjRXO7UnL6mpvkwiXZb9E-G9bhGX7S=A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120521165510.0a9d12c8@elandnews.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:49:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.240.85]
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
Cc: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13
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: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:52:57 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "S Moonesamy" <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>;
<apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:05 AM

> Hi Barry,
> At 16:41 21-05-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >[Re-sending this with the correct draft alias (without the version
number).]
>
> Thanks.  I preferred not resend the message to avoid generating mail
traffic.
>
> >I think I actually prefer it the way it is, because it highlights the
> >key point that this is all a policy decision.  If, in fact, an
> >implementation should allow a policy that everyone's considered
> >authenticated, and some deployment should choose that policy, I'd be
> >fine with it... because they have chosen their policy.
>
> Ok.
>
> >As this is my text, which I gave Alexey, I clearly prefer "ALL CAPS".
> >I like that it's demonstrative.  On the other hand, the discussion on
> >ietf.org about whether this is a wise idea or not brings up other
> >issues of more substance.
>
> I'll stay out of that discussion.

Mmm ... I think it worth noting that CAPS (or caps) is a proper English
term but not the one which is meant here:-(  What is meant here is ALL
CAPITALS which, when abbreviated, should have a period inserted; I find
it ironic that the attempt to be more precise should in fact be less so.

And yes, I am being serious.  As expert English speakers, you and I have
no problem with equating CAP with capital as opposed to cap (on your
head - or not, as the case may be) but these documents are being written
for a world-wide audience, whose English may not be expert and of whom
we should be considerate.

Tom Petch

>
> >I'd put this as a minor issue, rather than a nit, and strongly
suggest
> >that it be changed.
>
> That was my first thought.
>
> I consider the comments were addressed.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>