I think I'm going to request creation of my own private Directorate. David seems to get all my Gen-ART reviews, and we could possibly do some optimizing here. :-)
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The word "naked" is used a few times to refer to something that occurs in > isolation, without enclosure in another construct, e.g., a naked CR. This > idiomatic use of "naked" should be explained before it is used. > Fixed; just used "isolated" again. > > In Section 1.1, I have always heard Postel's law as: > - Be conservative in what you send, and > - Be liberal in what you accept. > The change from "do" in this draft to "send" (above) seems useful, as > it should help focus the discussion in the second paragraph of Section > 1.1 - Postel's law, as I have understood it, has never blessed anything > remotely resembling there being "no limits to the liberties that a > sender might take." > There are a bunch of versions. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel#Postel.27s_Law Some of them say "do", some say "send". Perhaps the most authoritative one is here, in Section 1.1.2: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122 It says "send". I'll make that a reference and adjust. I concur that the Law doesn't bless the extremes, but I believe the email community has (deliberately or through ignorance) gone there, which is largely the point of this work. > > Section 5's section title "Mail Submission Agents" doesn't seem to be > connected to its MHS and MTA content. It would be useful to add a > sentence to remind readers, including this one ;-), of what Mail > Submission Agents are. > The final sentence of that paragraph specifies what it does, but I see your point about the disconnect in terminology. Will adjust to tie it all together. > > Sections 7.1.* offers degrees of advice qualified by "safely", "usually", > "reasonably" and "should". There appear to be only two concepts: > - "safely": Do this all the time. > - "usually", "reasonably", "should": This is the recommended course > of action, but there may be exceptions. > While RFC 2119 is not intended for Informational documents, this is an > example of the sort of sloppiness that RFC 2119 is intended to clean up. > At the very least, the use of three words for essentially the same concept > is poor form, and RFC 2119 can be used in an Informational document when > appropriate caveats are provided in the terminology section that references > it. > Earlier versions of this draft looked roughly like an applicability statement, and thus had RFC2119 language throughout. We decided that, as you point out, it's mostly advice, and not a way of establishing a capability within Internet Mail, which would be more like what an applicability statement is for. I'm thus inclined not to backtrack, but merely satisfy your "At the very least" clause. > In Section 7.1.4, "Likewise" is not a good way to associate the second > example with the first, because it handles the missing parenthesis in a > rather different fashion (adds quotes instead of inserting the missing > parenthesis character). > Removed. > > In Section 7.7, the first use of "8bit" occurs in "8bit material" but some > of > the subsequent occurrences omit the word "material" - that word should be > used with all occurrences. > Fixed. > > idnits 2.13.00 generated a couple of warnings about obsolete references: > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1113 > (ref. > 'PEM') (Obsoleted by RFC 1421) > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 733 > (Obsoleted by RFC 822) > > In both cases, the reference appears to be intentional, and the warning > should be ignored. > Correct; I'll make sure the AD sees this. Thanks! -MSK
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
