Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-08

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 13 May 2015 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829D51ACEDF; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8FEO4TXxb48E; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0061AD218; Wed, 13 May 2015 15:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9532CC9C; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:27:49 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSEeuFrqas9z; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:27:49 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66972CC5A; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:27:32 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A79696C1-7BDB-4FA6-9D67-3ED7853A08AF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <555107BF.2040307@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:27:22 +0200
Message-Id: <BB12E72F-647E-4D2A-AA3A-6B14F86FB53C@piuha.net>
References: <554C00EE.6050803@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZoUDOHxPjb0SZxGnW9s0o9LA9TXWWPY6jhyHNivjbSLQ@mail.gmail.com> <555107BF.2040307@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/OOm2gTDs1voxxSOMU2iPcdhEE-Y>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 22:27:53 -0000

Thanks, both of you.

Jari

On 11 May 2015, at 21:49, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The -09 version resolves my comments completely, thanks!
> 
>   Brian
> 
> On 08/05/2015 12:26, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    It seems the author didn't see my Last Call review, so this review has not changed.
>> 
>> 
>> Nope, I hadn't.  Apologies for that.
>> 
>> 
>>    As the writeup says, this is an update to a long document that mainly resolves a
>>    notified erratum and some oversights in the previous version's IANA material.
>>    Therefore I did not review the whole document. As far as I can tell, the changes
>>    reflect the description in the writeup. (I assume that IANA will work with the
>>    author to get the registry updates exactly right.)
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, that's already happening behind the scenes.
>> 
>> 
>>    Minor Issue:
>>    ------------
>> 
>>    IMHO the "Change History" section should be summarised in a "Changes since RFC7001"
>>    section (rather than being deleted).
>> 
>> 
>> Sure, that seems a reasonable suggestion.
>> 
>>    Nit:
>>    ----
>> 
>>    6.7.  SMTP Enhanced Stauts Codes
>> 
>>    s/Stauts/Status/
>> 
>> 
>> Fixed for next version.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> -MSK