Subject: [EAI] New version of draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:04:43 -0400

Hi.

Peter Saint-Andre made some very useful comments on 4952bis
after I closed -09 out.   At his request and Alexey's, and
because they _were_ useful comments, I made another pass over
the document and have just posted -10.

With one possible exception, I'm convinced that all of the
changes are innocuous editorial ones and that, if I somehow
committed typos or the like, the RFC Editor will catch them and
straighten them out.

The exception is Section 10.1, which had gotten a little too
convoluted.  Peter found at least two sentences that he
interpreted differently than I/we intended, which is a bad sign.
I've rewritten a few sentences, and added a few words, to make
things completely clear.  But people probably want to check the
changes to be sure that what is now said is consistent with what
you think the WG intended.  A bit of it also goes further in the
direction of the proposed "advice to server operators" document
than I had originally intended, which I hope is ok.

If anyone has _serious_ objections to the changes, please speak
up immediately: the document is on its way to the RFC Editor.

    best,
     john

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:05:28 -0400

Grammar nit that the RFC editor will probably catch, in section 12:

That mechanisms => Those mechanisms

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

---

From: Yangwoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:45:33 +0900

And this one in section 8.1.

Messages that requires these extensions => Messages that require these
extensions

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Tony Hansen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>

-- 
a human / twitter as yangwooko / msn as [email-masked] / nate as
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:02:24 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:45 +0900 Yangwoo Ko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Messages that requires these extensions => Messages that
> require these extensions

Sigh.  Beyond a certain point, one has to be thankful that the
final editing is done by professionals with a fresh set of eyes.
Working version fixed.

thanks,
   john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:15:20 -0700

>up immediately: the document is on its way to the RFC Editor.

I read the draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-10.  This is more of a 
comment.  I gather that the following sentence in Section 10 will be removed:

   "A document that discusses issues with mail user agents (MUAs),
    especially with regard to downgrading [EAI-MUA-issues], is
    expected to be developed in the EAI Working Group."

Regards,
-sm

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:03:08 -0400

--On Monday, September 27, 2010 22:15 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> If anyone has _serious_ objections to the changes, please
>> speak up immediately: the document is on its way to the RFC
>> Editor.
> 
> I read the draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-10.  This is more of
> a comment.  I gather that the following sentence in Section 10
> will be removed:
> 

The statement was intended to be permanent -- a forward pointer
to a document that hasn't been discussed by the WG yet and that
might have some issues reaching consensus.  Hence the vague
reference.  The alternatives were to either leave the reader
wondering why 4952bis was incomplete in this regard or to hold
off on completing and publishing 4952bis until all other WG work
was complete.

Folks, 4952bis is done.  The IESG has signed off, the action
notice has been issued, and it will presumably show up in the
RFC Editor queue listing in the next day or two.   I posted -10
and called WG attention to it only because I dislike the
practice of deferring significant changes until AUTH48 (when the
WG doesn't get to look at them).  I am particularly concerned
about it in practice when the WG engaged in significant
discussion of the exact wording of a particular subsection and
the change alters that wording, as was the case with 10.1.

However, absent considerable consensus and willingness to
disrupt the rest of the schedule, we are not going back and
reviewing/ revisiting text that was there before Last Call.
Small editorial problems will almost certainly be caught and
fixed by the RFC Editor -- if you happen to notice any and want
to help, send an offlist note to Yangwoo and myself, copying
[email-masked], but let's not spend WG time on it.

I strongly recommend that whatever time we have should be
devoted to reviewing 5335bis, 5336bis, and the soon-to-be posted
5337bis.  We are behind schedule and need to start catching up.

best,
   john