On Wed 28/Nov/2012 10:17:50 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 17:02 -0600 Pete Resnick
The following erratum was posted for 5322. I'm inclined to reject
it since this discussion actually took place during DRUMS and the
consensus outcome as far as I could tell was that messages
without a final CRLF were SMTP's problem.
First, while that requirement of SMTP may not be required by 5322,
nothing prevents SMTP from imposing it. Again, these are design
decisions made during the DRUMS period, not errors, and errata are
not an appropriate way to reopen those design decisions.
I don't see the proposed clarification text as a real problem, but
don't see it as necessary either. If you reject the present
erratum proposal and another one is generated against 5321, I will
certainly recommend rejecting the latter as well (or at least
putting it into "hold for document revision".
So far, the point seems to be about the best way to hang post-it notes
that might be useful for document revision. A better tool than the
errata system would be handy, IMHO. Did you see the comment system
that the FSF put up for GPLv3? [*]
[*] A glance is worth a thousand words, see it in action e.g. at:
However, I note that each "hold for document revision" placeholder,
especially the subset that involve earlier design decisions, will
bring us closer to the need for a WG to revise 5321 rather than
allowing that to be an independent effort).
Does that mean independent of the pressure exercised by the weigh of
the post-it sediment?
ietf-smtp mailing list