[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was address maximum length

2019-11-29 21:54:52

--On Friday, 29 November, 2019 21:00 -0500 Valdis Klētnieks
<valdis(_dot_)kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:16:39 -0600, "Pete Resnick" said:

There were less than a dozen errata against 5322 that could
be trivially fixed. I fixed them as part of my conversion.

How large is the pile of errata that are non-trivial fixes?

To save Pete the trouble of answering unless he thinks I'm

For 5322 just about zero. close to zero if not zero.  I think
that is what he intended to say above, i.e., there were less
that a cozen errata and all of them could be trivially fixed.

For 5321, several of the errata raise interesting issues that
probably need to be addressed.  For some of those (a subset, but
a large one), whether the errata submitters knew it or not, the
problem is ultimately the decision we made to merge documents
rather than to try to do a complete rewrite that would preserve
the same content.  I think that decision needs to be revisited
and reviewed even while I predict we will reach the same
conclusion we reached the last two times (a decision I believe
to be pragmatic but sad).  In other cases, the problem is
evolution in how we do email in practice give various
(relatively new) stresses and what to do about that.  


ietf-smtp mailing list