Subject: Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:35:27 -0800

At 06:08 31-10-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
>Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
>- 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email'
>   <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>Please note that an earlier revision of this document was already
>approved by the IESG for publication as Informational. This document has
>references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and
>draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. As a result of IESG comments during IESG
>Evaluation of those two documents, the WG felt that they needed to make
>changes to this document and change its status to Standards Track from
>Informational. It is now being re-considered for Proposed Standard.

 From Section 4.6:

   "A conventional message is one that does not use any extension
    defined in the SMTP extension document [RFC5336] or in the
    UTF8header specification [RFC5335], and is strictly conformant to
    RFC 5322 [RFC5322]."

Shouldn't the RFC 5335 and RFC 5336 references be updated to 
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13 and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-15?

 From Section 11.3:

   "When signatures are present, downgrading MUST be performed with
    extreme care if at all."

The "MUST" in the above sentence could be lower-cased.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:28:08 +0000

> draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13 and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-15?

I think so.

> The "MUST" in the above sentence could be lower-cased.

Agreed. This must doesn't specify any implementation requirement.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:39:21 -0500

Ack.  All three changes made in working copy.

   john

--On Monday, November 07, 2011 16:28 +0000 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following
>>> document: - 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized
>>> Email' <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> as a Proposed
>>>   Standard
>>> 
>>> Please note that an earlier revision of this document was
>>> already approved by the IESG for publication as
>>> Informational. This document has references to and from
>>> draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and
>>> draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. As a result of IESG comments during
>>> IESG Evaluation of those two documents, the WG felt that
>>> they needed to make changes to this document and change its
>>> status to Standards Track from Informational. It is now
>>> being re-considered for Proposed Standard.
>> 
>> From Section 4.6:
>> 
>>   "A conventional message is one that does not use any
>>   extension defined in the SMTP extension document [RFC5336]
>>    or in the UTF8header specification [RFC5335], and is
>>    strictly conformant to RFC 5322 [RFC5322]."
>> 
>>   "When signatures are present, downgrading MUST be performed
>>   with extreme care if at all."
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima