Subject: [yam] Request for comments: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:05:34 -0800

This is a request for comments on the issues for 
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01 [1].

This is the list of verified or reported Errata to date:

Errata ID 1683: Verified - Change in the ABNF in Section 4.4

Errata ID 1543: Reported - Change in SMTP code in Section 3.8

   This was posted to the YAM WG mailing list [2].  There was a 
request for the erratum to be considered as retracted [3].

Errata ID 1851: Reported - Editorial change in Section 4.1.1.5

Errata ID 1820: was rejected.  It is being discussed within the WG as Issue #9.

Issue #5: Section 6.1: rewording

   There hasn't been any discussion about the issue [4].

Issue #6: Section 4.4: remove typo

   There was comments about the sentence being out of place 
[5].  Additional discussion about the false binary choice for DSN 
started on the same thread.

Issue #7: Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions

   This was discussed [6] [7] [8].

Issue #8: Section 4.1.1.3 Recipient: missing text

   This issue has not been discussed [9].

Issue #9: Section 3.9.2: remove extra text

   A change was suggested [10].

Issue #10: 3.9: add tiny subsection

   There were several comments [11] [12].

Issue #11: 3.1: Clarify language for 554 status code

   There was a discussion [13].

Issue #12: Using RFC 2606 for examples

   This will be in the pre-evaluation I-D [14].

Issue #13: RFC 2119 keywords and Idnits

   There is a typo [15].

Please review RFC 5321 and post your comments to the mailing 
list.  If you want any other change in RFC 5321bis, post the 
suggested text, optionally with the reason(s) for the change, to this 
mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-01
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00067.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00079.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00165.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00222.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00181.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00223.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00236.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00168.html
10. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00224.html
11. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00230.html
12. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00237.html
13. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00185.html
14. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00240.html
15. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00234.html