Subject: [ietf-smtp] draft-klensin-rfc5321bis

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 22:50:59 -0500

Hi.

In line with the discussions of the last several days, I'm about
to post an I-D with file name draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-00 and
the obvious title.  This is not a proposal for publication.
Instead, it is a status document, containing a record of
possibly-significant changes going back to when we started on
what became RFC 5321bis.  It also contains an analysis of all
"verified" and "held for new version" errata on 5321.  Those
that seemed perfectly obvious to me have been incorporated into
the text and identified; those that are not have been turned
into questions and/ or issue descriptions.

I expect that some people will find the annotations associated
with the 2821-> 5321 evolution distracting.  Barring something
unforeseen, I expect to post a -01 version dated 3 December that
will have those suppressed and the introductory Note to readers
adjusted but will otherwise be substantially identical.  Pick
the one that best meets your needs and inclinations.

Again, this document is not a proposal for a successor to 5321.
It is intended to be helpful in discussions about whether we do
want to revise 5321 and, if we decode to do that, at least some
hints about what we are getting into and issues that will need
some sort of resolution.

Enjoy.
    john

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:41:05 +0100

I'd annotate this draft using Hypothesis:
https://web.hypothes.is/

Annotating requires trusting their Javascript and their servers' handling of
"public" annotations.  For the pros, it's a quite handy way to address John's
notes without cluttering the mailing list.

Best
Ale

On Tue 03/Dec/2019 04:50:59 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>