Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

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

--On Tuesday, 06 January, 2004 09:07 -0500 Bruce Lilly 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>>
>> So, for the new year I started thinking about getting 2822 to
>> Draft.  (Also, 3822 is coming up in the RFC numbers :-) ).
>> I've gotten started  on getting a new draft together. There
>> are a small bunch of nits to  fix; that I can handle. There's
>> also an implementation report to  write. On that I'd like to
>> get some help.
>>
>> The one possible big thing has to do with the ABNF in 2822.
>> Out of  either altruism or insanity, some time ago Bruce
>> Lilly had written up  changes to the ABNF in 2822 to do some
>> cool things. On the plus side,  it seems to get rid of all of
>> the [C]FWS shift-reduce conflicts, and  it is already done.
>> On the minus side, I don't know anyone (myself  included) who
>> has gone over it with a fine tooth comb, it is a  significant
>> number of ABNF changes, and it therefore might recycle us  at
>> Proposed. I am open to suggestions on this.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> pr
>
> As
> a) 2821 and 2822 are closely related
> and
> b) there remain a few inconsistencies between 2821 and 2822
> is there a draft of a 2821 successor that can be reviewed at
> the same time
> as the draft of the 2822 successor?

The editor of 2821 also made a new year's resolution, and 
actually opened the document last week to incorporate more of 
the changes that have been suggested.   The bad news is that the 
working copy is in Word XP. I'm not a Word fan -- all of my 
other I-Ds are in XML or directly edited in ASCII-- but because, 
after the experiences with DRUMS, I wanted to be sure that I 
could identify, in the working text, the source and 
justification for all of the requested changes if any 
controversy arose.   The difficulty is that converting a Word 
document with as many comments, change markup, internal cross 
references, etc., as that one now has is far beyond the scope of 
RFC 3285 (the attempt was what produced the "RFC 3285 considered 
harmful" thread on the IETF list a year or so ago).  So, I'm 
reluctant to go through the rather painful conversion until I 
have a complete draft.   If you would like to look directly at 
the Word form, or a PDF display of it (our experience has been 
that Word XP documents with extensive comments and markup don't 
get along with Mac Word either), I think that could be arranged 
within the next week or two.

    john