IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 28 March 2008 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE863A6BBF; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDLqEn6BuDII; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D343A6874; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8EA3A68FE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iMip2jVGSYhB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F353A67A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Jf5SM-000MKL-W1; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:40:43 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:40:42 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <21D73EF73CC9D55AED9BD5A1@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <200803280038.m2S0cWLB029250@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <200803280038.m2S0cWLB029250@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


--On Friday, 28 March, 2008 11:38 +1100 Mark Andrews
<Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:

>> OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts
>> of sense, but not, of course, in 2821bis.
> 
> 	Why not in 2821bis?  Is 2821bis really that time critical?

It is on its way to Draft Standard.  This would be a
sufficiently new feature to force recycle at Proposed, which, to
put it mildly, would not be welcomed by the editor or, more
important, those who convinced me to do the work.

  john



_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email