Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Tony Hansen wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> Other suggestions (as an individual contributor):
>> 1). I think the extension registration needs to be updated to say 
>> that the extension is valid on Submission port.
>
> Aren't all SMTP extensions implicitly defined for the Submission port 
> unless specifically *not* allowed?

Yes, but the submission document defines an updated template which is 
not used consistently.
This is not a big deal, but I think just saying that explictly would be 
a good thing.

This doesn't have to be mentioned in the pre-evaluation document though.

>> 2). Change 1 line ABNF in section 2 to use RFC 5234 syntax:
>> OLD:
>>
>> body-value ::= "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"
>>
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> body-value = "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"
>
> Advantage: it's a simple update, a single line, trivial to do, and 
> easy to check for accuracy.
>
> Disadvantage: Does it set the expectation that we'll adjust 8BNF => 
> ABNF in future YAM updates? How slippery is the slope?

I am fine with not mentioning this change in the pre-evaluation 
document, if this helps.

As a WG contributor: I think the WG should just do this change in 
rfc1652bis. If it is little effort, we should upgrade BNF to ABNF.
I am also hoping that we wouldn't have this argument for every document 
processed. It is certainly not worth in relationship to changing/not 
chaning one line in this document.

> Any other thoughts on this?