Subject: [EAI] Pre-Last Call comments from Pete and Barry -one action item for the WG

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:42:16 -0400

Hi.

Proving that every careful reading by a new set of eyes, Pete
and Barry found some small issues with the documents even after
our careful reviews and revisions.  To bring everyone up to date
and ask a question:

Barry's comments have been reflected in draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-09

Pete's comments are mostly editorial and uncontroversial.  We've
agreed to carry all of them forward into Last Call and to give
the RFC Editor instructions to pay attention to them and apply
fixes as needed.

The exception is that Pete had two substantive comments about 
draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade.  They are:

> 1. In section 3.1.7: Is there supposed to be a space (" ")
> between display-name and ENCODED_WORD? Also, if this is
> supposed to be ABNF, it needs a left hand side, and
> ENCODED_WORD should be in angle brackets.
> 
> 2. In section 3.1.9: Typed addresses do not appear in header
> fields as far as I know. They only appear in DSN bodies. Why
> are they specified here? See also 3.2.2.

We've agreed that it is ok to go into Last Call on these two
documents with those issues as no more than questions, i.e.,
without waiting for a new document revision.   However, I'd
appreciate comments from the author about what should be done
about those two issues and enough comments from others that we
can be confident that the WG is in agreement with any changes.
Those changes, plus any of the editorial ones that seem worth
fixing before the document gets to the RFC Editor, should be
incorporated into a revised draft after other Last Call comments
are considered and before the IESG starts voting.

    john

p.s. the Mailinglist draft is on the IESG ballot for a week from
today.  So far, we have we have three "yes" votes, one "no
objection" and silence from the others (not unusual at this
point).  Given that there were zero Last Call comments that
required any changes and that the document provides a detailed
discussion of issues rather than specifying a protocol, I'm
hopeful that it will go through with a minimum of [further] fuss.