On Thursday, March 29, 2012 08:36:06 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > During AD Evaluation, which is the first step of the publication process, > our AD had numerous concerns with the applicability statement draft, all of > which were focused on clarity in our use of normative language. > > I sat down with him and with Barry here in Paris and sorted out his > concerns. The attached diff iooks much better to him, and I agree that it > makes the language much tighter and even removes some redundancy in one > case. > > Please get a look and let me know what you think, up or down. I'd like to > post it late Friday night (Pacific time), and I need at least a couple of > people to make sure that I haven't broken anything we wanted to say. After > that it will get scheduled for an IETF-wide Last Call and IESG evaluation.
Except for the change to 5.1.2, I think it's all reasonable. I suspect that what's actually written in the revised 5.1.2 doesn't reflect what was intended. The problematic (IMO) sentence now says: "Mail operators MUST NOT reject reports formatted per [RFC5965] as email messages ([RFC5322]) over SMTP ([RFC5321]). " There are lots of reasons to reject messages and I think a general MUST NOT reject is far to global. The old wording was: "Mail operators MUST be prepared to receive reports formatted per [RFC5965] as email messages ([RFC5322]) over SMTP ([RFC5321])." The way it's worded now would be appropriate if rejecting one of these messages had some major interoperability impact and that's not the case. Reading over this section (5.1.2), I'm no longer sure what it was meant to accomplish, so I don't have a recommendation for new wording. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
