Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-04

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
At 08:49 14-07-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>Let's be careful here.  A number of the issues you raise are
>really about the fundamentals of mailing list management.  I
>agree that it would be good if the IETF developed up to date
>protocol specifications or best practices guidance in this area.

I'll preface this message by saying that I consider my comments as addressed.

It would be good but I don't think it's realistic to ask for that in 
this document.

>But they are not in scope for EAI.   For EAI, I think it is in

Ok.

>IMO, testing for message/global is a subset of inspecting
>message content and, in particular, of "examining the headers
>and body".  Even if one asked for that text in particular, the
>statement above would still have to be present because there are
>many ways to have messages that require SMTPUTF8 features
>without having message/global present.

Ok.

>You are getting very far into the implementation details of
>these various headers.  In the case of List-* header fields,
>that requires updating the base documents.  That has been
>discussed previously and is not on the agenda for this WG.  What
>the document says is consistent with the current specs, i.e.,
>that anything that is present has to be conformant to them.

Ok.

>So what are you suggesting be done about it.  I recommended
>removing that discussion; several people in the WG wanted
>something minimal there.  The present text appears to meet that
>minimal requirement.

I'll go with the WG view to have something minimal (no change suggested).

>Submitter was, I believe, deliberate because "author" rapidly
>takes on all sorts of ambiguity.  I recommend this issue be
>deferred to those hypothetical mailing list management documents
>and that the author/editor use his discretion.

Ok.

At 09:10 14-07-2012, John R Levine wrote:
>I thought that they were perfectly reasonable suggestions (other 
>than message/global, which was a misunderstanding), and I'm not 
>planning to address any of them.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm