Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

SM wrote:

> At 06:08 31-10-2011, The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
>> Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email'
>>   <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> Please note that an earlier revision of this document was already
>> approved by the IESG for publication as Informational. This document has
>> references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and
>> draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. As a result of IESG comments during IESG
>> Evaluation of those two documents, the WG felt that they needed to make
>> changes to this document and change its status to Standards Track from
>> Informational. It is now being re-considered for Proposed Standard.
>
> From Section 4.6:
>
>   "A conventional message is one that does not use any extension
>    defined in the SMTP extension document [RFC5336] or in the
>    UTF8header specification [RFC5335], and is strictly conformant to
>    RFC 5322 [RFC5322]."
>
> Shouldn't the RFC 5335 and RFC 5336 references be updated to 
> draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13 and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-15?

I think so.

> From Section 11.3:
>
>   "When signatures are present, downgrading MUST be performed with
>    extreme care if at all."
>
> The "MUST" in the above sentence could be lower-cased.

Agreed. This must doesn't specify any implementation requirement.