[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-00.txt

2005-07-13 02:10:18

--On Tuesday, July 12, 2005 21:22 -0400 Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> wrote:

Some quick comments on the draft and its security counterpart.

1. numeric reference tags are deprecated, as discussed on the
   rfc-interest list several months ago

One-line change in the XML, which has been tested. I decided to leave -00 as is to permit more easy comparisons to 2821. I will probably switch to the other form for -01, depending on what feedback comes in. And discussion on rfc-interest is not exactly the way normative changes are made around here.

2. the security draft needs a good proofreading:
   o "mesage"
   O "among" should probably be "amount"
   o "approrpriate"
   o "appropropriately"
   O " if IDENT" should probably be " of IDENT"

Which part of it did you have trouble understanding? Put differently, it was a hasty job to aid discussion and the choice was between getting it out as is or doing the careful proofreading and posting in around 8 August. This seemed better. I assume we will make some decisions, somehow, which will be folded into the 2821bis base document -- I'd be surprised if there is a -01 of this that will need polishing or revising.

3. There remains a conflict with RFC 2822 w.r.t. the Received
   field; 2821[bis] permits a quoted-string for the "id"
component,    which is not permissible in the field as defined
in RFC 2822.

Clearly one of them should be adjusted. Which one is, IMO, a list or WG discussion item.

4. The same peculiar and confusing wording of RFC 1123 is
repeated;    RFC 822 did not "suggest" an '@' in a msg-id, it
clearly specified    it (along with '<', '>', '.', and
possibly '[' and ']') in msg-id.

And this is not 822 or 822bis. As I indicated in the temporary introductory material, very few purely editorial changes have been made (including your long list of suggestions of a year ago). Those haven't been rejected, just deferred for/unti further discussion.

5. "TCP" really ought to be registered with IANA for use in the
   "via" Received field component (or dropped, since it wasn't
in    821).

Yes, someone should do that. Do you think it can be just done, or that we need to create a new "IANA considerations" subsection? :-(

6. Consistent terminology would be helpful.  "Header" is
sometimes    used in the sense given in FYI 18 and as defined
in RFC 2822,    and other times where "header field" would be
more appropriate.

See "editorial" above.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>