Subject: [EAI] Framework (4952bis) approved... next steps

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:14:59 -0400

Hi.

The IESG approved 4952bis today and a new --I hope final-- I-D
has been posted.

The charter says that we are supposed to wrap up three more
documents this month (within the next week and a half):

SMTPext (5336bis)
Headers (5335bis)
DSNs, etc. (5337bis)

My impression is that the first two are pretty close to being
ready to go, so anyone who thinks they need more work should
explain what they think is needed, with text, soon --certainly
by this time next week.  Consider this a tentative WG Last Call
on both documents.

If they are actually stable, we need to start pushing ahead with
the next batch of documents (for which we don't even have I-Ds
yet).

We apparently still don't have an I-D for 5337bis, which is now
very much in the critical path.  Tony, what is a realistic
schedule?

thanks,
     john

---

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:21:34 -0400

I posted comments on 5335bis, 5336bis in three emails on Sep 8.  Most 
of the comments were editorial in nature to improve readability. 
However, one comment pertains to an error in that three referenced ABNF 
rules are not defined.

There was no follow-up discussion on these emails, so I don't know if 
the original comments have been accepted or not.

-Ernie

On 9/23/2010 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:13:37 +0800

in the current version of the documents, the name defination of rfc5335bis and 5336bis  follow the same rule
with the prefix "u" plus the original name:
local-part---->uLocal-part

defintion of some names in rfc5336bis refer to 5335bis ABNF
if they try to do difine the "same names". 

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:15:02 -0400

Regarding Comment 2, The following are not defined anywhere. They should 
be added to rfc5335bis-02.
uDomain
uDot-String
sub-uDomain

Here is the result of searching the two documents:

Search "uDot-String"
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-02.txt
Line 412: uLocal-Part    =  uDot-String / uQuoted-String

Search "sub-uDomain"
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-02.txt
Line 415:                =  (sub-uDomain 1*("." sub-uDomain)) / 
address-literal

So sub-uDomain and uDot-String need to be defined somewhere.

In rfc5336bis-03
             uMailbox = uLocal-part "@" uDomain
               ; uLocal-part and uDomain defined
               ; in RFC 5335bis, Section 4.

uLocal-part is defined in rfc5335bis-02 but uDomain is not.

-Ernie

On 9/28/2010 5:13 AM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
> From: "Ernie Dainow"<[email-masked]>
> To: "John C Klensin"<[email-masked]>
> Cc:<[email-masked]>