John C Klensin wrote:
[13] (RFC 1176, the original IMAPv2 spec) is used as part of a
comment about historical development, for which [14] (RFC 3501,
IMAPv4r1) would just be inappropriate.
Okay, those are intentional references to obsolete RFCs:
The problems associated with ill-formed messages were exacerbated by
the introduction of the split-UA mail reading protocols (RFC937 [11],
RFC1939 [31], RFC1176 [13], RFC1056 [27]).
How about writing something like this:
The problems associated with ill-formed messages were exacerbated by
the introduction of the split-UA mail reading protocols like POP and
IMAP (now POP3 [31] and IMAPv4r1 [14]).
I haven't heard of PCMAIL before, apparently a kind of BBS. I fear
that's not more relevant today. With the proposed wording you could
remove the historical [11], [13], and [27] from the references.
tampering with the references is not completely straightforward...
Yes. but in some cases it's easy, e.g. for [12] you'd need the new
draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis when it survived the IESG evaluation,
and if you keep it in chapter 7.1 -- I'd like to defer "chapter 7.1"
issues for some I-Ds, rewriting it from scratch later (separately).
[[ Oops, "Apparenly-To" is already mentioned in 7.2, I've added it
to <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers/37> ]]
If we were trying to do a more significant revision, I think I'd
try to reduce the number of such references, rather than
increasing them.
That "If" belongs to the TINW. Some concepts are stated more than
once, "tuning" them at one place could be inconsistent with their
use in another place. For an example see three cases of the old
"bounce := reject" terminology in chapters 2.4, 3.4, and 3.5.3,
inconsistent with the revised terminology in chapters 61. and 6.2:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/5395>
I'm personally disinclined to start down the path of trying to
significantly upgrade, or even fine-tune, the external
references (although, if people really want it and supply
specifics, I'll try to find time).
For the POP and IMAP cases I think it's better to use the names
instead of obsolete RFC numbers, with references to the actual
RFCs, but that's mainly a matter of taste and editorial issue.
For the "missing" 3848 link there's a clear place _where_ I miss
it, in section 4.4, in the ABNF comment for <Attdl-Protocol>:
- ; Additional standard names for protocols are
- ; registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers
- ; Authority (IANA) in the "mail parameters"
- ; registry. SMTP servers SHOULD NOT use
- ; unregistered names.
+ ; Additional standard names for protocols are
+ ; registered in the "mail parameters" registry
+ ; as specified in [RFC 3848]. SMTP servers
+ ; SHOULD NOT use unregistered names.
2119-keywords and references in an ABNF comment are again a
matter of taste, I'd convert it to prose. What does "Attdl"
stand for ?
Frank