ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec (Certified Electronic Mail) to Proposed Standard

2009-10-14 03:30:44
Hi John,
At 18:09 13-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the part of the review that I don't want to do unless it
is clear that it really belongs on Standards Track.  If it is an

I mentioned to the authors of this draft that the changes I may suggest for the document to be appropriate as a proposed standard would make it incompatible with PEC. As you said, this is one of the cases where we have to consider what kind of review is appropriate for an I-D.

To pick up another element of your comments, RFC 2822 and 5322
discourage the use of X-headers.  Even if the Xs were removed,

This is again a case where existing implementations will be used to argue why the X-headers cannot be changed even though using such headers for messages on the Internet is bound to cause problems.

it is not clear to me that the relevant headers are clearly
enough defined for a header registry.   And, perhaps as part of
your "internationalization considerations" remark, I note that
we have never standardized a header field name that is based on
Italian, rather than English, words.  I can't think of any
particular reason why we should not (although there are lots of
reasons to not have standard header field names that require
non-ASCII strings) but it is a major step that needs some
serious consideration... not slipping in the back door via a
"security" document.

I noticed that some RFC 5322 headers are translated in Spanish. It's difficult to say that headers must be in English (they are in Italian in the draft). However, if we are to have a header field name translated for each language, we will end up with an unworkable situation.

Yes, I think the things that you, Sam, and I spotted on very
quick inspection are probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg,
all of which will have to be examined if the document is really
standards track.   But I also agree with Sam's other main point:
if the document is to be processed as an Individual Submission
Standards Track spec, it should reflect _at least_ the document
quality we expect out of WG documents being similarly processed.
It doesn't.

I didn't see Sam's message. I agree that such documents should reflect the document quality we expect out of Working Group documents.

So my personal recommendation to the sponsoring AD and IESG is
that this Last Call should be withdrawn (immediately or Real
Soon Now to avoid wasted effort) and, when appropriate, replaced

I would like to know what is expected from the community for this Last Call.

Regards,
-sm


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf