Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-03.txt

Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> Sat, 30 July 2011 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.newman@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A6821F8C70 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03a92zNKwIGX for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.43.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BF321F8C5F for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brmsunmail2-sfbay.uk.sun.com ([10.79.11.101]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id p6U3xMOI015035; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:59:22 GMT
Received: from gotmail.us.oracle.com (gotmail.us.oracle.com [10.133.152.174]) by brmsunmail2-sfbay.uk.sun.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id p6U3xK4J055159; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:59:21 GMT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Received: from [10.159.50.151] (dhcp-rmdc-twvpn-2-vpnpool-10-159-50-151.vpn.oracle.com [10.159.50.151]) by gotmail.us.oracle.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u5-4.01 64bit (built May 4 2011)) with ESMTPA id <0LP400F04OESJB00@gotmail.us.oracle.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:26:36 -0400
From: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Message-id: <A2DCE49D0EB7B2000BAAF182@dhcp-1764.meeting.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <4E32409C.7050203@att.com>
References: <20110711231213.13281.36812.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3DA67019F7D7311B2120C842@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90> <4E32409C.7050203@att.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 04:05:18 -0000

--On July 29, 2011 1:09:48 -0400 Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the review Chris. More below.
>
> On 7/28/2011 6:30 PM, Chris Newman wrote:
>> --On July 11, 2011 16:12:13 -0700 internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>>     Title           : Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition
>> Notifications
>>>     Author(s)       : Tony Hansen
>>>                           Chris Newman
>>>                           Alexey Melnikov
>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-03.txt
>>>     Pages           : 21
>>>     Date            : 2011-07-11
>>
>> Although I wrote the bulk of the initial text, I am no longer primary
>> editor and have not reviewed this since a draft of 5337 so was able to
>> look at it with fresh eyes. I believe this is ready for last call and
>> ready to publish. Some very minor issues:
>>
>> 1. The references to UTF8SMTP need to be changed to the UTF8SMTPbis
>> placeholder throughout the document.
>
> Where is there an instance where it does *not* reference 5336bis?

The text in RFC 5336 implies that the "UTF8SMTPbis" keyword will be changed 
to some as-yet-unspecified value at publication. RFC 5337bis needs to use 
that same unspecified value. If that as-yet-unspecified value is anything 
other than "UTF8SMTP", then RFC 5337 has a bug.

		- Chris