Subject: Re: [EAI] 4952bis-04

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:53:29 -0400

--On Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:27 +0900 Yangwoo Ko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> A few comments that are mostly minor / editorial ones. I agree
> to ship it with(or even without) reflecting them.

Co-author's privilege: -05 is now in the posting queue.

Joseph, as soon as you have a draft of the shepherd's report,
let me review it if you like, then let's get this to Alexey and
the IESG before the end of the month (we didn't make July as the
Charter specified, but let's make August).

> (1) In section 5,
> 
> The document set, whose members are described below, also
> contains informational documents whose purpose is to provide
> implementation suggestions and guidance for the protocols.
> 
> ==> We don't have informational RFCs for EAI. If "information
> documents" means informaiton RFCs, we'd better strike out the
> statement.

The charter (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eai/charter/) has
January benchmarks for three "Advice for..." documents, which
would clearly be Informational.  So, assuming we really intend
that (IIR, editors are not yet assigned) that statement is ok.
So far.

> (2) In section 7.1,
> 
> ASCII-compatible (ACE) encoding
> 
> ==> ASCII-compatible encoding (ACE)

ok, fixed.
 
> (3) In section 7.1, the documents says
> 
> If the message cannot be forwarded because the next-hop system
> cannot accept the extension it MUST be rejected or a
> non-delivery message generated and sent.
> 
> ==> ... rejected or a non-delivery message MUST be generated
> and sent.

I think the original was ok, but this is perhaps more clear.
Fixed.

> (4) In section 7.1,
> 
> it MUST conform to the i18n IMAP or POP specifications
> respectively.
> 
> ==> it MUST conform to the i18n IMAP or POP specifications
> respectively [RFC5738bis-IMAP] [RFC5721bis-POP3].

The RFC Editor and I have been trying to sort out the question
of how many times, and where, citations need to be be repeated.
For the first reference, clearly they have to be there.  For
places where there would be ambiguity or the document is so long
and complex that the citation isn't obvious, probably worth
repeating.  But this seems obvious without the explicit citation
and the citation does appear in Section 5.  So I'm inclined to
leave it and make the sentence easier to read (especially since
we expect this document to be published in RFC from concurrent
with 5335bis and 5336bis, but not to wait for 5721bis and
5738bis).

best,
      john