Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status report
John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com> Fri, 11 July 2008 15:53 UTC
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6BFrRBQ040776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:53:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m6BFrRUt040775; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:53:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6BFrPBG040768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:53:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from john+smtp@jck.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KHKw0-000Oto-Ou; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:53:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:53:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status report
Message-ID: <9839B646BE244B75466601BA@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20080711083047.0349ce78@resistor.net>
References: <803DD61F4A0B9C2F2F965AF4@p3.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20080711083047.0349ce78@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
--On Friday, 11 July, 2008 08:43 -0700 SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote: > 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. Your proposed second sentence is not a sentence (although it could be fixed without too much trouble). The original one is correct. However, there is hope for your suggestion of breaking that sentence up. The RFC Editor has a long and successful history of editing my long, complex-structure, sentences into multiple shorter ones. Usually I don't fight them on it :-) regards, john
- Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status r… John C Klensin
- Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status r… SM
- Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status r… John C Klensin
- Re: rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status r… Tony Hansen
- rfc2821bis-11 posted -- contents and status report John C Klensin