[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Unsticking rfc2821bis

2008-07-18 02:43:19

Hi John,
At 14:58 17-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
Section references are to -11.  However, neither the section
numbers nor the relevant text have changed in a _long_ time.
Most of you will be able to deduce what is being proposed from
the context of this note.


(1) Rename section 2.3, now called "Terminology" to "SMTP

That's fine if you move the 2119 boilerplate out of that section as mentioned below.

(2) Create a new section 1.5, titled "Document Conventions"
(suggestions about better names would be welcome, but I think
this does the job).


(3) Move the 2119 boilerplate from 2.3 to 1.5.  That puts it
closer to the front of the document, where it probably belongs
anyway.  <snide> The fact that there is not yet a requirement
about exactly where 2119 text goes may be an oversight, but is a
discussion for the proposed new I-D Checklist, not this list.


(4) Create a new, second (i.e., after the 2119 text), paragraph
of 1.5 that reads:

        Because this document has a long history and to avoid
        the risk of various errors and of confusing readers and
        documents that point to this one, most examples and the
        domain names they contain are preserved from RFC 2821.
        Readers are cautioned that these are illustrative
        examples that should not actually be used in either
   code or configuration files.

That looks fine.

response.  I would be happy to discuss the latter group of
issues in Dublin with anyone interested, ideally in the presence
of appropriate beverages.  But my instinct right now is that we

If you mellow down in the presence of appropriate beverages, I'm all for it. :-)

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