Subject: Re: [EAI] 4952bis-04

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:44:13 +0000

> I hope  that this is now close enough to finished that we can
> hand it off to the IESG and request IETF Last Call.

+1 - Ship it.

-Shawn

Shawn Steele
 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste

---

From: Yangwoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:27:32 +0900

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

(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.

(2) In section 7.1,

ASCII-compatible (ACE) encoding

==> ASCII-compatible encoding (ACE)

(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.

(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].

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Shawn Steele
<[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]