Re: [yam] Issue #4

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

SM wrote:

> Hi Ned,
> At 10:45 02-11-2009, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>> For starters, the reference to RFC 822 in RFC 1652 is for ABNF and 
>> nothing
>> else, so it upgrades cleanly to RFC 5234 - already a Standard, no 
>> downref
>> needed. There's no need to reference RFC 5322 for this purpose at all.
>
> Agreed

Indeed.

> (RFC 1652 Section 2 - Item 4).

>> I'll also take this opportunity to point out that this is actually an 
>> error in
>> draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00, which states that what 
>> needs to be
>> done is update the reference to RFC 5322. So it seems that while 
>> frothing about
>
> That can be dropped from the Downward references part of that draft.

Yes.

>> As for the reference to RFC 821, the purpose of it is to get at the 
>> definition
>> of what's allowed in a message. I don't think a credible argument can 
>> be made
>> that the definition of the overall syntax of a basic message (i.e., 998
>> chearacter or less CRLF delimited lines of 7bit ASCII), is ever going to
>> change. Pigs will travel at lightspeed first.
>
> The reference to RFC 821 is for compliance with SMTP (7BIT) and for 
> the MAIL command.  That can be replaced with RFC 5321.

I agree, as we will be advancing RFC 5321 to Full anyway.

>> Finally there's the reference to RFC 1651. The plan is to replace 
>> this with a
>> reference to RFC 5321, which is a fine plan, but if that's a downref 
>> issue then
>> a reference to RFC 1651 - a Full Standard - could simply be retained.
>
> The Full Standard is RFC 1869.  That can be replaced with RFC 5321.

+1. I don't see we should have a reference to RFC 1869 just because it 
is a full standard.

>> Moreover, if you're going to worry about downrefs in the context of 
>> RFC 1652,
>> the thing to be looking at isn't SMTP or core message format stuff, 
>> but MIME.
>> An argument that a downref to MIME could be problematic could be made 
>> a lot
>> more easily. Mind you. I still don't think rises to the necessary 
>> level to
>> prohibit the downref, but it's a vastly more credible arugment than one
>> involving 5321/5322. So does this mean we also need to advance MIME 
>> to Standard
>> first?
>
> The downref to RFC2045 and RFC2046 can be kept until 1652bis has been 
> evaluated.  There is no need to advance MIME to Standard first.  The 
> point is to process the document and take it out of the loop.

IESG would probably appreciate advancing MIME first, but the WG doesn't 
have to do this first.

> The reference to STD 14 can be removed.

Right, because it is not used.

The following reference is also not used:

   [4] Moore, K., "Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
       Headers", RFC 1522, University of Tennessee, September 1993.

Collecting all changes in one place, this is my recommendation:


All existing References become Normative.

A normative reference to RFC 2119 needs to be added, as the document is 
using MAYs

[1] RFC 821 --> 5321 (Draft) - downref, but in scope for YAM

[2] RFC 822 --> RFC 5234 (Full)

[3] RFC 1521 --> RFC 2045 (Draft) - downref, but in scope for YAM

[4] - remove as unused

[5] RFC 1651 --> RFC 5321 (Draft). Same as [1], so can be replaced with [1]

[6] - remove as unused.