Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9422 <draft-freed-smtp-limits-07> for your review

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Alice,

Basically a brilliant job.  Thanks.  In particular, you
rationalized Ned's stylistic choices in favor of mine,
particularly capitalization conventions in titles, use of
commas, and my aversion to using citation anchors as nouns.  I
had ignored those in the interest of preserving Ned's text
through the I-D stages, but, now, especially since consistency
is good,...  In addition to the answers to questions in my prior
note, comments and changes appear below (I was going to change
the XML, but there was only one thing ((5) below) that I would
have been willing to make without asking.  I have not sorted out
the "Limits" versus "LIMITS" stuff as per prior notes (Murray's
as well as mine).  I am waiting for that revision to check.

Comments, stylistic nits, and a correction: 

(1) In Section 3.5 and probably elsewhere, I was taught, and
continue to believe, that references to Section numbers are part
of the citation, making "(Section 4.5.3.1.8 of SMTP [SMTP])"
awkward.  But I think that is a disagreement about the Style
Guide and not this particular change, so ok.  FWIW, this type of
citation is the main reason I went to numbered references in RFC
5321 and draft-emailcore-rfc5321bis, which I hope you will be
seeing soon.

(2) In Section 4.1 - 4.3, my instinct might have been to write

Old (using 4.1 just as an example):
	Value syntax:  %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6-digit maximum

Maybe:
	Value syntax:  %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; "0" not allowed, six-digit
maximum

Comment: 
	Matter of taste.  The change to "0" and "six" would make
	it more clear that it was a comment.   It would be even
	more clear if the layout were changed to

	Value syntax:  %x31-39 0*5DIGIT
        ; "0" not allowed, six-digit maximum

	Make any of these adjustments, all, or none as you
	prefer, just do it consistently throughout the document.

	
(3) Section 7.1: Several good catches in addition to the normal
transformation.  Thanks.

(4) Section 3, first sentence:

OLD:
	Extensions to SMTP are defined in Section 2.2 of SMTP
	[SMTP].  [LMTP] inherits...

NEW:
	Extensions to SMTP are defined in Section 2.2 of SMTP
	[SMTP].  LMTP [LMTP] inherits...

Comment:
	Whoops -- got one and not the other.  To save you a
	few seconds:
	<xref target="RFC2033" format="default">LMTP</xref>
	inherits 
	

Above is based on the diffs.  I will try to do a complete read
through in parallel with your attacking the "LIMITS" question.

thanks again,
    john





--On Monday, January 8, 2024 23:07 -0800
[e-mail] wrote:

> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2024/01/08
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
> 
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> 
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been
> reviewed and  approved by you and all coauthors, it will be
> published as an RFC.   If an author is no longer available,
> there are several remedies  available as listed in the FAQ
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> 
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other
> parties  (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary
> before providing  your approval.
> 
> Planning your review 
> ---------------------
> 
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> 
> *  RFC Editor questions
> 
>    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
> Editor     that have been included in the XML file as comments
> marked as     follows:
> 
>    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> 
>    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> 
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
> 
>    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> 
> *  Content 
> 
>    Please review the full content of the document, as this
> cannot     change once the RFC is published.  Please pay
> particular attention to:    - IANA considerations updates (if
> applicable)
>    - contact information
>    - references
> 
> *  Copyright notices and legends
> 
>    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>    (TLP ??? https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> 
> *  Semantic markup
> 
>    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
> elements of      content are correctly tagged.  For example,
> ensure that <sourcecode>     and <artwork> are set correctly.
> See details at 
>    <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> 
> *  Formatted output
> 
>    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that
> the     formatted output, as generated from the markup in the
> XML file, is     reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will
> have formatting     limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> 
> 
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
> 
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ???REPLY
> ALL??? as all  the parties CCed on this message need to see
> your changes. The parties  include:
> 
>    *  your coauthors
>    
>    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> 
>    *  other document participants, depending on the stream
> (e.g.,        IETF Stream participants are your working group
> chairs, the        responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>      
>    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival
> mailing list        to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is
> not an active discussion        list:
>      
>      *  More info:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4
> Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc      
>      *  The archive itself:
>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> 
>      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may
> temporarily opt out          of the archiving of messages
> (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).         If needed,
> please add a note at the top of the message that you 
> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list
> and          its addition will be noted at the top of the
> message. 
> 
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> 
> An update to the provided XML file
>  ??? OR ???
> An explicit list of changes in this format
> 
> Section # (or indicate Global)
> 
> OLD:
> old text
> 
> NEW:
> new text
> 
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> explicit  list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> 
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
> that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new
> text, deletion of text,  and technical changes.  Information
> about stream managers can be found in  the FAQ.  Editorial
> changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> 
> 
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
> 
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this
> email stating that you approve this RFC for publication.
> Please use ???REPLY ALL???, as all the parties CCed on this
> message need to see your approval.
> 
> 
> Files 
> -----
> 
> The files are available here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422-rfcdiff.html
> (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9422-xmldiff1.html
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9422
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9422 (draft-freed-smtp-limits-07)
> 
> Title            : The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension
> Author(s)        : N. Freed, J. Klensin