On 24 Jan 2019, at 11:56, John R Levine wrote:
I have some different comments about this. Sometimes thinking through the
consequences of a seemingly simple suggestion makes it less simple... Sorry
'bout that.
1. I don't believe a stable reference should be required. ...
See section 3.1 of the draft, and if it's not right, please send text. It
currently says (among other things):
The Designated Expert is expected to check that a proposed
Additional-registered-clause has a specification that is stable and
detailed enough to implement the clause and interoperate.
2. The "additional registered clauses" is presently a sub-registry of the
"Mail Transmission Types" registry within the "mail parameters" registry
category. I suggest we rename this to "additional registered Received
clauses" and make it a top-level registry in the "mail parameters" category
-- this should make it easier to find on the iana.org web page.
3. Rather than having to go read section 8 of RFC 5321 to know how to
register one of these, I suggest we copy the text from that section relevant
to this registry so it's all in one specification.
4. The expert reviewer should verify that the syntax of the clause value is
well-defined and complies with the "received-token" syntax in RFC 5322.
OK with me if it's OK with everyone else.
5. Noting an appropriate mailing list where public review of a proposal is
appropriate can be helpful for expert review registration procedures.
Wouldn't that go in the registry page?
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp