Re: last call for 'MDN profile for IMAP (BCP)'

ned+imapext@INNOSOFT.COM Wed, 27 November 2002 17:05 UTC

Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gARH5Ml02036 for ietf-imapext-bks; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:05:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gARH5Kg02032 for <ietf-imapext@imc.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KPBK3N8CS0004VR6@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf-imapext@imc.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:01:13 -0800
From: ned+imapext@INNOSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: last call for 'MDN profile for IMAP (BCP)'
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:58:01 +0100" <A018F79E-0218-11D7-B05E-0003934A5A7E@inet.it>
To: Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@inet.it>
Cc: imap-ext IETF <ietf-imapext@imc.org>, ned.freed@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01KPCV4MFESQ004VR6@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <A018F79E-0218-11D7-B05E-0003934A5A7E@inet.it>
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

> While reading the draft draft-melnikov-imap-mdn-04.txt I wondered
> about the section '0. To do list and open issues'.
> There is still 1 item and how can this document then
> be in last call??

It is common for such sections to appear in documents that are last called.
They are always removed prior to publication. I already have an RFC Editor
note that says to do this along with several other things.

> What would this todo item cause as changes in the document??

The presumption is that the issue, such as it is, will be left unresolved.
When I reviewed this I didn't think the issue was substantive. If it is
seen as substantive by someone, well, that's what last calls are for...

				Ned