Hi Dave,
At 12:51 21-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
While yes, the references are informative, the sentence that uses them
is fundamentally incorrect, and ways that matter. As for 'issues with
those bits of technologies', I'm not sure what you mean or how it is
relevant here.
I'll skip commenting about this to get back to the issue at hand.
The question is whether to retain the current language, replace it, or
drop it.
Given the problems with the existing text, I am not understanding your
basis for suggesting its retention.
The only way I can think of to determine what to do about the current
language is through an erratum. The Application Area Director
rejected Erratum #4405 because "this is a change request, not an
errata report".
I reviewed what was published as RFC 5321 twice. The mailing list
archive will show that I was wrong about that sentence and that I did
not raise an issue about it. The YAM mailing archive will show that
I had another opportunity to raise an issue but I did not do so. If
I recall correctly I did not consider the inclusion of that sentence
as a significant issue.
I could have suggested dropping the sentence. It did not seem
worthwhile to argue about the sentence given that the erratum was rejected.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp