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

Ack.  All three changes made in working copy.

   john

--On Monday, November 07, 2011 16:28 +0000 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima