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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 01:29 11-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>I have just queued draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-11 for posting.

I read that draft.  The following comment is not an issue.  In Section 2.2.1:

   "However, the Internet community now considers some services to be important
    that were not anticipated when the protocol was first designed."

Shouldn't that be split into two sentences?

   However, the Internet community now considers some services to be important.
   That were not anticipated when the protocol was first designed.

>* 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.

That's fine with me.

Regards,
-sm