Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:44:52 -0700

Colleagues,

Since my co-author and I have been unable to solicit any comments or
support for continuing to work on the above document for many months now,
we are going to let it expire at the end of this week absent a sudden surge
of interest in the near future.  If the working group is interested in it
again at some later date, we can ressurect it.

For now I'm going to mark it "parked", leaving Salvatore's docket slightly
lighter.

-MSK

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:24:08 -0400

I've provided comments before, and felt that those comments had been
dealt with properly. More comments below.

I think the document should just be published as informational rather
than being parked. If there's interest in the future for working on it
more, that can be an expansion.

    Tony Hansen

On 4/9/2013 3:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> support for continuing to work on the above document for many months
> now, we are going to let it expire at the end of this week absent a
> sudden surge of interest in the near future.  If the working group is
> interested in it again at some later date, we can ressurect it.
>
> For now I'm going to mark it "parked", leaving Salvatore's docket
> slightly lighter.

section 8.7
    This section has a title of eight-bit data, but switches quickly to
the term non-ASCII data.

    But it also has suggestions on how to handle messages with the NUL
character (0x00), which *is* both an ASCII character and is not an
eight-bit character. (Note that the NUL byte (0x00) is spelled NUL in
the ASCII specs, not "null".)

    Should the term "octet" be used instead of "byte"?

    The title should probably reflect its coverage of NUL bytes and
stick with one term, as in

        8.7 NUL Octets and Non-ASCII Data

The document uses 2119 normative language in some places, but not others
where it probably should.