Skip to main content

Internet Message Format
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-12

Yes

Murray Kucherawy

No Objection

Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Jim Guichard
Zaheduzzaman Sarker

No Record

John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Orie Steele

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Murray Kucherawy
Yes
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Comment (2024-05-13 for -11) Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Todd Herr for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)


## Section 2.2

```
A field name MUST be composed of printable US-ASCII characters except for space (SP, ASCII value 32) (i.e., characters that have values between 33 and 126, inclusive) excluding colon.
```

Suggest to move the text about colon next to space + use its ASCII value. The I-D introduces the %d32 notation, why not using it here ?

## Section 2.2.2

`folding SHOULD be limited ` when can this SHOULD be bypassed?

## Examples in appendix

Please consider using a more recent year than 1997 in the examples (at the exception of the "obsolete" syntax).
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Comment (2024-05-15 for -11) Sent
Thank you for the work on this document. Thanks to Todd for providing the diff in the shepherd writeup, very useful.

I only have one comment to raise, I have debated balloting DISCUSS to make sure this is addressed, but I figured this is only something that I wasn't able to find myself and the wg has probably already addressed it.

During my review, I noted that there were 4 errata open on RFC 5322, 3 of which were addressed by this doc and I just verified appropriately. 6921 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6921) is still open. I noted that the suggested text hasn't made it into the document. In the mailing list I only found this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/sICtqSqJ0qYshsPTp-WR9_VaAf8/ where Pete asks for suggestions and John has an opinion, but none of that text made it into the final document. I also scanned the doc for the errata id but it is not mentioned anywhere.

Was this discussed somewhere else, and a decision reached (maybe a meeting)?
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2024-05-16 for -11) Sent
Thanks for the discussion on my concern. I was convinced this document is not the correct place for this concern.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-05-12 for -11) Not sent
Thank you to Thomas Fossati for the GENART review.  Please merge the discussed changes from this review.

idnits is also reported changes needed to the abstract due to this document updating and obsoleting other RFCs.  This needs to be called out.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2024-05-15 for -11) Sent
Thank you for this document - it seems like it likely required much work...

Also thanks to Sheng Jiang for the OpsDir review, and to Pete for the discussions to address the comments.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
John Scudder
No Record
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Record
Orie Steele
No Record