Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to Draft Standard (4) (was: Lists and aliases)

> Ned Freed wrote:

> > keep the MUST for aliases but lose it for lists? I could
> > live with that too but it would probably force a recycle.

> I'd opt for "better standard" instead of "better status"
> if these choices are in conflict.

I question whether they are in conflict. In particular, I question whether
removing this requirement will make this document significantly better, which
IMO is the appropriate criteria for assessing a change at this point in the
process.

> The 2821bis / 2822upd
> procedure is somewhat odd, first John insisted on doing
> this simultaneously, and I thought that's not necessary.

> Now I think he was always right, but what we really do
> is out of sync:  Likely 2822upd will pull NO-WS-CTL, or
> move it to its "obs" chapter.

> But the 2821bis in Last Call has a normative reference to
> 2822, not 2822upd, and so it inherits obscure NO-WS-CTL
> not limited to (non-existing) domain literals, it also
> has cruft like DEL and horrors like NUL in a few places.

I would prefer to have a reference to 2822upd, but I suspect this decision
dates back to when it wasn't clear that 2822bis was going to get updated more
or less at the same time.

				Ned

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf