Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status report

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John! I'll buy you a <your-choice-of-beverage> in Dublin!

	Tony Hansen
	[e-mail]

John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I have just queued draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-11 for posting.
> 
> It reflects:
> 
> * The results of Tony's poll on the use of RFC 2606 names in
> comments.  I count 17 people as having responded. Neither Tony
> nor I recorded a position.  That 17 includes most of those who
> actively participated in the 2821bis development and discussions
> (again, other than Tony and myself).  Of the 17, 14 favored no
> change from the examples and domain names that appeared in the
> -10 version (option 1 in the poll) and three, including one
> person who did not participate in any of the development
> discussions, favoring changing all but the ISI/USC examples
> (option 2 in the poll).  The instruction I infer from this is
> clear; the examples are the same as they were in -10 (the second
> Last Call version and the one that the IESG reviewed).
> 
> * Three changes have been made (again, relative to -10) in
> addition to the ones in the list in Tony's note of a few days
> ago.  I have added an explicit note asking the RFC Editor to
> remove the Change Log (Appendix G) before publication.  That was
> always the intent but the note wasn't inserted due to a
> technical glitch.   I have also added an informative reference
> to RFC 5248 (BCP 138) (the Enhanced Mail System Status Code
> registry spec).  Again, that was always the intention since this
> work motivated that specification.
> 
> In addition, some of the usual editorial smoothing has been
> done, this time just to save the RFC Editor time.  In this
> version, the primary ones of those were elimination of some
> additional spaces that were artifacts of the XML and
> rationalization of text describing RFCs to use "RFC nnnn" rather
> than "RFCnnnn" (the former versions used those forms
> interchangeably, which was unattractive).
> 
> Those changes, and the ones in Tony's earlier list (all included
> in the Change Log excerpt below) reflect all last call and other
> comments agreed with the IESG.
> 
> The proposed IESG Note has not been incorporated.   As I
> understand the procedures, the IESG proposal for that note and
> its text are not final until the evaluation ballot is closed and
> a Protocol Action notice issued.
> 
> Serious showstopper comments welcome.  Otherwise, this version
> is provided for information and for the convenience of the RFC
> Editor.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> 
> The Change Log section associated with this draft is as follows
> (this has been copied from the Change Log in the text and is
> provided, with some reformatting, for convenience):
> 
>   G.13.  Changes from version -10 to -11
> 
>    This version incorporates changes developed during IESG
>    evaluation and associated notes.
> 
>    1.  Removed "in in" in Appendix A
> 
>    2.  Added definition for dcontent
> 
>    3.  Production for Standardized-tag restored to 2821 form.
> 
>    4.  Changed 'text' in productions for Greeting and
>        Reply-line to 'textstring' and added production for the
> 	   latter. 
> 
>    5.  Added RFC 1123 to the "updates" header.
> 
>    6.  Editorial changes to make the spellings
>        (capitalization) of Forward-path, address-literal, and
> 	   QcontentSMTP internally consistent.
> 
>    7.  Added a reference to RFC 5248 (the desire to reference
>        that document from here was part of the reason for
>        producing it) and noted explicitly that this section
>        should be removed before final publication.
> 
>    8.  Editorial cleanups: removal of excess blank spaces,
>        changing "RFCnnnn" forms to "RFC nnnn" ones (previous
> 	    versions used both with no consistency).
> 
> 
> If this section were a permanent part of the text, it would make
> sense to consolidate items 1, 6, and 8 into one "editorial
> corrections" entry but, given that the section goes away before
> publication, it seemed better to reflect these separately since
> they originated from different comments or instructions.