Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

On 5/16/09 5:28 PM, SM wrote: If you want to provide the historical chain of development, you'll have to start with RFC 1341 for MIME. Mail routing is covered in RFC 974. There's also RFC 1123 which updates or annotates portions of RFC 821 to conform to current usage (at that time). RFC 1123

Re: draft-crocker-email-arch-13 (was: Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard)

> --On Saturday, May 16, 2009 07:23 -0700 Ned Freed > wrote: > >> Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new > >> bullet in 6.3 says > > > >> > o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of > >> > true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability > >> > to

Re: draft-crocker-email-arch-13 (was: Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard)

--On Saturday, May 16, 2009 07:23 -0700 Ned Freed wrote: >> Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new >> bullet in 6.3 says > >> > o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of >> > true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability >> > to internationali

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Hi Dave, At 08:33 15-05-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: The text is not normative and is providing the historical chain of development for transfer and content specifications. If you want to provide the historical chain of development, you'll have to start with RFC 1341 for MIME. Mail routing is co

Re: draft-crocker-email-arch-13 (was: Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard)

> Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new > bullet in 6.3 says > > o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of > > true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability > > to internationalization. > It is not obvious at all. Excuse me? If it isn't obvious

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

John C Klensin wrote: Hi. This is a tiny nit, but, since -13 has not yet been posted... A few of the references list organizations and not authors as authors and should probably be fixed.[RFC5335] sort of leapt out at me. A quick scan also turned up [RFC1652], but I have not done a compre

draft-crocker-email-arch-13 (was: Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard)

Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new bullet in 6.3 says > o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of > true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability > to internationalization. It is not obvious at all. MIME does three things: (i) It ch

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

FYI, Diff from previous version: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-email-arch-13 and the usual pretty stuff (and diff) are at: d/ Original Message Subject: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-arch-13

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

John C Klensin wrote: This is a tiny nit, but, since -13 has not yet been posted... Thanks. Since the latest draft has been modified to respond to your recent observations about internationalization and the role of an architecture document I'm glad to see that your concerns are reduced to

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Hi. This is a tiny nit, but, since -13 has not yet been posted... A few of the references list organizations and not authors as authors and should probably be fixed.[RFC5335] sort of leapt out at me. A quick scan also turned up [RFC1652], but I have not done a comprehensive check for others.

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

(just in time for shipping the final version for IESG consideration after Last Call...) SM wrote: In the Introduction section: "The underlying technical standards for Internet Mail comprise a rich array of functional capabilities. The specifications form the core: * Simple Mail T

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 05:27 13-04-2009, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Internet Mail Architecture ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action.

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

I support this version of the document. Tony Hansen t...@att.com The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'Internet Mail Architecture ' > as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a dec

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Ned Freed writes: But that's the problem - this is not what RFC 5321 says. It's not what 3501 says either ;) More of a one-sentence simplification than a full and exact description. ... SMTP server do stuff like expand lists all the time. For those tests to be done competently some amount

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

s...@resistor.net writes: > If there isn't an authoritative reference and there are differences in > semantics or syntax between the draft and RFC5321/5322 or future > revisions of these documents, it can lead to serious issues. > Standards Track documents are around years. The documents may be

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

s...@resistor.net writes: If there isn't an authoritative reference and there are differences in semantics or syntax between the draft and RFC5321/5322 or future revisions of these documents, it can lead to serious issues. Standards Track documents are around years. The documents may be edit

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 07:49 02-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is authoritative? There are several possible answers: 1. The author of the draft chooses the email-arch draft 2. The author of the draft chooses RFC 5321 and RFC 5332 3. Have the peopl

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

On Mon Mar 2 16:05:16 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is authoritative? > Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of course. That sounds p

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

ned+ietf-s...@mrochek.com wrote: At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them. email-arch Section 2.2.2 "The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and- forward, by transmitting or retransmittin

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Maybe Dave you should add an Updates tag to your draft? Eliot On 3/2/09 5:26 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them. email-arch Section 2.2.2 "The Relay performs MHS-level tra

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them. email-arch Section 2.2.2 "The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and- forward, by transmitting or retransmitting the message to its Recipients.

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them. email-arch Section 2.2.2 "The Relay performs MHS-level transfer-service routing and store-and- forward, by transmitting or retransmitting the message to its Recipients. The

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is authoritative? > Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of course. That sounds pretty unstable, since it produces context-dependent

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

On Mon Mar 2 15:49:09 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is authoritative? Whichever is cited by the document referencing the content, of course. Alternately, we could have a public food fight between Klensin, Resnick, and Crocker. I

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

For the content that overlaps in RFC5322 and RFC5321, which one is authoritative? d/ SM wrote: At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it be authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322? This presumes that there are different semant

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 20:21 01-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it be authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322? This presumes that there are different semantics or syntax offered by them. I'm replying to this point separately so that it does not get conf

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

SM wrote: As this draft is being considered as a Proposed Standard, will it be authoritative instead of RFC 5821/5322? This presumes that there are different semantics or syntax offered by them. What inconsistencies are you seeing, specifically, so we can fix them. Again, we should note tha

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 10:10 26-02-2009, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Internet Mail Architecture ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action.

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Dave, I don't think much can be accomplished by an extended debate about our respective points. I've injected my comments into the Last Call bin, you have injected yours. As both of us have pointed out on many other occasions, this is not about seeing how many endorsers one can get. You will p

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

John C Klensin wrote: What specific changes are you proposing? Really, John, whatever folks agree on is more than fine with me. However, I also note that some other experienced IETFers have indicated that they consider it acceptable to leave the text as-is. Please note that besides the

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

At 8:30 PM -0500 2/27/09, John C Klensin wrote: >Instead, it >references (given how little text is in the Internationalization >section, "incorporates by reference" might be more accurate) a >somewhat-outdated private consortium document that has never had >anything resembling formal IETF review.

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

--On Friday, February 27, 2009 16:50 -0800 Dave CROCKER wrote: > John, > > With respect to character set, internationalization, and the > like, I cannot tell what text changes you propose for the > document. The current text was developed through community > discussion. > What specific chan

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

John, With respect to character set, internationalization, and the like, I cannot tell what text changes you propose for the document. The current text was developed through community discussion. What specific changes are you proposing? s/old/new/ form, or a multiline equivalent, would be m

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Since this is a substantive comment on a document that is in Last Call for Standards Track, I'm posting the note to the IETF list. Since I use different addresses for the SMTP list and the IETF one, I don't know when or if this will appear on the latter. With the exception of the last point, this

Re: [Fwd: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard]

ticular, note the enclosed announcement's: "Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-03-26." Thanks. d/ ---- Original Message ---- Subject: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard D

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

-- Forwarded message -- From: The IESG Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM Subject: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard To: IETF-Announce The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Tony Hansen wrote: Should it be using RFC5321/RFC5322 instead of RFC2821/RFC2822, such as RFC5322.From instead of RFC2822.From? yes. current draft came out just before the latest RFCs were published. final publication will be revised (and nits fixed -- thanks for the close read.) d/ --

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > consider the following document: > > - 'Internet Mail Architecture ' > as a Proposed Standard +1 for publication. Should it be using RFC5321/RFC5322 instead of RFC2821/RFC2822, such as RFC5322.From instead of

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

The IESG wrote: >The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >the following document: > >- 'Internet Mail Architecture ' >as a Proposed Standard > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >final comments on this action. Please send

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Internet Mail Architecture ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substant