Re: [ietf-smtp] [IANA #817403] Evaluation: <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> to Proposed Standard

I'm tired of having to approve every post for having "implicit
destination", so please reply to this one if there's further
discussion; I've added the ietf-smtp list explicitly.

Barry

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:
> John, you made a transcription error. The code should be X.1.10.
>
> In draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-10, it's listed as 5.1.TBD, and IANA assigned a
> 10 to the TBD.
>
>     Tony
>
>
> On 4/14/15 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:21 -0700 Ned Freed
>> <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No doubt I'm missing something obvious, but where do I see
>>>>> this comments on the new datatracker?
>>>>
>>>> In the "History" tab.  Trouble is that the IANA review isn't
>>>> well marked (never has been).
>>>
>>> So today's message refers to the comments made two weeks ago?
>>>
>>> This seems odd, but OK.
>>
>> Ned (and others),
>>
>> That aside, the real issue here is that someone needs to check
>> the extended code and either reassure IANA that it is correct
>> (and that the document should say "register the code") or tell
>> them (and me) that I made a typographical or transcription
>> error.  As I've told Barry and a few others, my IETF time is
>> completely tied up with URNBIS, some closely-related issues
>> (including whether or note the URI scheme registration document
>> has important side-effects), and some IAB-related stuff.   If
>> I'm not actually on travel, I would have time to patch some text
>> into the otherwise-ready-to-go -06 of this document, but not the
>> bandwidth to study the extended codes.  If someone who is closer
>> to them than I am could do that, we could probably get this
>> document cleared rather than wondering what is happening with it.
>>
>>     john
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp