Hi Alfred,
First of all, I would like to thank you for the review.
At 05:38 11-02-10, Alfred Hönes wrote:
I have respun my recollection from the final stages of the 2821bis
effort. Some of my LC comments those days had been postponed in
favor of getting the document out. Skimming over the 5321bis
pre-evaluation draft, I did not see explicit mention of these
details -- but I might have missed these so far; I still need some
spare time to more closely read the draft. In particular, I'm not
sure whether or not the last two items in Section 2.4 are intended
to cover these editorial issues; Appendix B does not refer to the
postponed 2821bis LC review comments.
Editorial issues will be considered, within
reason. If you are not sure whether your issues
are covered by the pre-evaluation I-D, please
post a message about them. Which postponed
2821bis LC comments are you referring to?
OTOH, I already had performed a new independent close reading of
RFC 5321 from scratch, but for typing in my marginal notes (on
~40 pages of the RFC) and more closely investigate some of my
observations, I'll need (at least) another full working day,
which I did not have available so far this year.
The WGLC ends today. The WG is not going to ignore substantive comments.
Before forwarding the pre-evaluation draft to the IESG,
I suggest to align temporal referals to the document history
(in order to avoid confusion); e.g. in bullet 5. of 2.5,
"last year" is OBE, "in 2008" should be substituted.
Good catch.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
