On 22/07/2020 14:19, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 05:31 -0700 Dave Crocker
On 7/22/2020 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word
"that" as feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more
Just to confirm, I assume you mean:
> This working group will conduct that limited review and
I was trying to preserve as much of the original text as I
could and didn't even think about this. In context it works,
given the paragraph that precedes it. But it certainly isn't
essential. Also, it's worth making the paragraph stand on its
This working group will conduct a limited review and
revision to the base email specifications, and will publish
new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status,
per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to corrections
and clarifications only. In addition to processing existing,
verified errata and errata marked as "held for document
update", the WG may address newly-offered errata. However, no
new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for
inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are
already published as RFCs.
Shouldn't that be "standards track RFCs"? As I read 2026, even
as modified by 6410, there are no other possibilities consistent
with publishing 5321bis and 5322bis as Internet Standards.
I thought this point needed a bit more discussion and I thought I could
find some IETF Consensus Informational RFCs that might be of interest.
But I ended up finding none :-). A couple of RFC that I thought might be
Informational and might be of interest are RFC 3848 ("ESMTP and LMTP
Transmission Types Registration") and RFC 6729 ("Indicating Email
Handling States in Trace Fields"). The former is already a Draft
Standard and the latter is Proposed.
ietf-smtp mailing list