OK; shall I do an update or wait for more comments? -Jim
On 12/4/18 7:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Valery, > > On 04/12/2018 15:00, Valery Smyslov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> while preparing shepherd write-up for the draft I came across >> one issue. IANA Considerations section contains the following text: >> >> If published as an RFC, this draft requests the addition of an entry >> to the Permanent Message Header Field Names Registry >> [PermMessageHeaderFields]: >> >> Header field name: RequireTLS >> Applicable protocol: mail >> Status: provisional >> Author/change controller: IETF UTA Working Group >> Specification document: (this document) >> >> I'm not familiar with Message Header Field Names Registry, >> but it seems to me that this request is wrong. In particular, >> according to RFC 3864 the status for the Permanent Fields must be one of >> "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic", "obsoleted", >> etc., >> but not "provisional", which is only appropriate for the >> Provisional Message Header Fields. I think that in this case >> it must be "standard", since the draft is Standards Track document. > I agree. >> In addition, the Change controller must be just "IETF" >> (again, according to RFC 3864). > Yes. >> Am I missing something? >> >> And note also a small typo in Section 2: >> s/succesfully/successfully >> >> Regards, >> Valery. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Uta mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
