Hi.
I have just queued draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-11 for posting.
It reflects:
* The results of Tony's poll on the use of RFC 2606 names in
comments. I count 17 people as having responded. Neither Tony
nor I recorded a position. That 17 includes most of those who
actively participated in the 2821bis development and discussions
(again, other than Tony and myself). Of the 17, 14 favored no
change from the examples and domain names that appeared in the
-10 version (option 1 in the poll) and three, including one
person who did not participate in any of the development
discussions, favoring changing all but the ISI/USC examples
(option 2 in the poll). The instruction I infer from this is
clear; the examples are the same as they were in -10 (the second
Last Call version and the one that the IESG reviewed).
* Three changes have been made (again, relative to -10) in
addition to the ones in the list in Tony's note of a few days
ago. I have added an explicit note asking the RFC Editor to
remove the Change Log (Appendix G) before publication. That was
always the intent but the note wasn't inserted due to a
technical glitch. I have also added an informative reference
to RFC 5248 (BCP 138) (the Enhanced Mail System Status Code
registry spec). Again, that was always the intention since this
work motivated that specification.
In addition, some of the usual editorial smoothing has been
done, this time just to save the RFC Editor time. In this
version, the primary ones of those were elimination of some
additional spaces that were artifacts of the XML and
rationalization of text describing RFCs to use "RFC nnnn" rather
than "RFCnnnn" (the former versions used those forms
interchangeably, which was unattractive).
Those changes, and the ones in Tony's earlier list (all included
in the Change Log excerpt below) reflect all last call and other
comments agreed with the IESG.
The proposed IESG Note has not been incorporated. As I
understand the procedures, the IESG proposal for that note and
its text are not final until the evaluation ballot is closed and
a Protocol Action notice issued.
Serious showstopper comments welcome. Otherwise, this version
is provided for information and for the convenience of the RFC
Editor.
john
The Change Log section associated with this draft is as follows
(this has been copied from the Change Log in the text and is
provided, with some reformatting, for convenience):
G.13. Changes from version -10 to -11
This version incorporates changes developed during IESG
evaluation and associated notes.
1. Removed "in in" in Appendix A
2. Added definition for dcontent
3. Production for Standardized-tag restored to 2821 form.
4. Changed 'text' in productions for Greeting and
Reply-line to 'textstring' and added production for the
latter.
5. Added RFC 1123 to the "updates" header.
6. Editorial changes to make the spellings
(capitalization) of Forward-path, address-literal, and
QcontentSMTP internally consistent.
7. Added a reference to RFC 5248 (the desire to reference
that document from here was part of the reason for
producing it) and noted explicitly that this section
should be removed before final publication.
8. Editorial cleanups: removal of excess blank spaces,
changing "RFCnnnn" forms to "RFC nnnn" ones (previous
versions used both with no consistency).
If this section were a permanent part of the text, it would make
sense to consolidate items 1, 6, and 8 into one "editorial
corrections" entry but, given that the section goes away before
publication, it seemed better to reflect these separately since
they originated from different comments or instructions.