[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2821bis vs rfc2119

2005-09-05 01:36:21

In <FCA2EC437E3809FF2CFC6569(_at_)scan(_dot_)jck(_dot_)com> John C Klensin 
<john+smtp(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:

--On Saturday, 03 September, 2005 00:46 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:

Hi, here's a list of my first observations in 2821bis (-00):

* 2.3 (terminology) [no new issue]

I prefer the usual style of 2119 keywords with a reference.

The definitions of those terms are different in 2821 than in the
2119 usage, with 2821 following 1123 and related traditions.
The difference is significant.

What are the differences between the definitions in 2821 and 2119?

I just went through and compared them, and they appear to be
word-for-word identical.  RFC2821bis appears to have reformatted them
to make it look less like RFC2119, but other than that, I didn't see
any changes.

*IF* there are differences, they should be noted and justified so that
people do not have to carefully compare the two sets of definitions.

                                Please review the DRUMS archives
if you are interested.

Could you please point me to the official archives for DRUMS?  I've
looked for it a couple of times now, and I haven't found it.  The IETF
doesn't seem to do a good job of keeping coherent records of concluded
working groups.


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