Subject: [EAI] Suggested wording change to draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-09 -- pleae confirm

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:42:32 -0400

Hi.

There has been extensive discussion of the specific wording in a
few of the POP/IMAP document as part of the IESG review.
Because the WG spent a lot of time on some of the sections in
question, I/we (Joseph and myself with backing from Pete and
Barry) want to check changes that might be significant with the
WG to be sure that no one thinks they change meaning for the
worse or in a way that violates WG intent.  In other situations
where the proposed changes are purely editorial, our intent is
to let the authors and RFC Editor sort things out rather than
specifying exact text as part of the IESG approval process.

If anyone objects to that model, please speak up.

Otherwise, a proposed change to draft-ietf-eai-5738bis is below
for your reading pleasure.  Anyone who believes this change is a
significant problem should speak up immediately.

>>> OLD:
>>> 
>>>    ... If a client requests a UTF-8 message when
>>>    not in UTF-8 mode, the server MUST either create the
>>> message content    variant (discussed in Section 7 of
>>> [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis]) it sends    to the client to comply
>>> with unextended POP and Internet Mail Format    without UTF-8
>>> mode support, or fail the request with a -ERR response
>>> containing the UTF-8 response code (see section 5).  ...
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>>    ... If a client requests a UTF-8 message when
>>>    not in UTF-8 mode, the server MUST either create the
>>> message content    variant it sends to the client to comply
>>> with unextended POP and Internet    Mail Format without UTF-8
>>> mode support or fail the request with a -ERR    response.
>>> The server can create the message content variant in a
>>> manner of its own choosing, and Section 7 of
>>> [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis] provides some discussion of potential
>>> issues.  Section 5 of this    document discusses UTF8
>>> response codes.

I have warned the proposer and the IESG that we expect to ask
the RFC Editor to change terms like "message content variant"
and "synthetic message" to "surrogate message"; that change is
not affected by this proposal.

    john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:26:54 -0700 (PDT)

This seems like a reasonable change to me.

				Ned

> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:35:52 +0900

Same to me.   Regards,   Martin.