Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07

Alexey Melnikov <> Fri, 28 August 2009 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0139C3A6A78 for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.541
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V1h8vY1Pz4DH for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34C83A6A67 for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:51:20 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:51:06 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Paul Hoffman <>
References: <p0624083ec6bdad5d3ccd@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624083ec6bdad5d3ccd@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <>, Harald Alvestrand <>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, Xiaodong Lee <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:51:16 -0000

Hi Paul,
Thanks for the review.

Paul Hoffman wrote:

>The document *is not ready* for IESG review, however. In fact, it should not have been placed in IETF Last Call in its current state.
Arguably this is my fault, I was eager to get this document to IESG 
review due to external deadlines on EAI work.

>Did anyone even read the Abstract, for crying out loud?
Well, Ok, I haven't read it recently. And nobody in the WG has spotted this:

   This is an early draft and intended as a framework for discussion.  Please
   do not deploy implementations of this draft.

which I will ask to remove.

>Further, the I-D Nits checker finds two hard errors: a line the is obviously too long, and an obsolete normative reference.
While I agree that these should have been fixed, I personally don't 
think it is a big deal. In particular outdated references are regularly 
fixed by RFC Editor and frequently spotted during IESG review.
(As a side note: on the last IESG telechat I saw a reference to a 
document that was obsoleted 3 times. This was quite impressive :-)).