IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt> (Registrationof Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header fields foruse in Internet Mail) to Informational RFC

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED7B21F87C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GwfZBzlcQg2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD0921F8AAA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [188.28.118.23] (188.28.118.23.threembb.co.uk [188.28.118.23]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TnIlYwAZ1C2z@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4E722554.8040803@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:28 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt> (Registrationof Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header fields foruse in Internet Mail) to Informational RFC
References: <20110914195304.6235.35027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <00b801cc737b$d11b4a20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4E71BE72.4060309@isode.com> <4E72172F.6010608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E72172F.6010608@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:16:33 -0000

Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> 15.09.2011 11:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> t.petch wrote:
>>
>>> I notice that section 3, to which IANA are directed, contains many 
>>> formulations
>>> such as
>>> "   Specification document(s): [[anchor14: this document]]"
>>>
>>> Would I be right in thinking that this is what other documents would 
>>> refer to as
>>> " RFCXXXX
>>> -- Note to RFC-Editor - replace RFCXXXX by the RFC Number assigned 
>>> to this
>>> document"
>>> ?
>>
> There is no significant difference between these forms.  I don't think 
> this is an issue which we need to care about.

Agreed. I think RFC Editor can figure this out.

> Mykyta
>
>> Yes, that was the intent.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email