Skip to main content

Internet Message Format
draft-resnick-2822upd-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
06 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from presnick@qualcomm.com, draft-resnick-2822upd@ietf.org, tony@att.com to tony@att.com
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2008-10-06
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-10-06
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5322' added by Amy Vezza
2008-10-01
06 (System) RFC published
2008-08-28
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-08-28
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-08-28
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-08-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-08-26
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-08-26
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-08-26
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-08-26
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-08-26
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-08-19
06 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Lisa Dusseault
2008-08-19
06 Lisa Dusseault The implementation report is now at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/2822-interop-report.txt
2008-06-26
06 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-23
06 Cullen Jennings I do not understand how publishing this as draft standard without an implementation report is consistent with RFC 2026.
2008-05-23
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22
2008-05-22
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-05-22
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund
2008-05-22
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2008-05-22
06 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.5.3:

There might be a possible ABNF error in this construct:

  obs-bcc        =  "Bcc" *WSP ":"
    …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.5.3:

There might be a possible ABNF error in this construct:

  obs-bcc        =  "Bcc" *WSP ":"
                      address-list / (*([CFWS] ",") [CFWS]) CRLF

Which is equivalent to:

obs-bcc = ( "Bcc" *WSP ":" address-list ) / ( ( *( [ CFWS ] "," ) [ CFWS ] ) CRLF )

However, I guess that you are actually are interested to express are:

obs-bcc = "Bcc" *WSP ":" (address-list  /  (*( [ CFWS ] "," ) [ CFWS ] )) CRLF
2008-05-22
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-05-22
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-05-22
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-05-22
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-05-21
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot discuss]
Uh, where is the interop report? I read Russ's comment but I don't think I understand what is going on with this document.
2008-05-21
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot discuss]
Uh, where is the interop report?
2008-05-21
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-05-21
06 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-05-21
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-05-21
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-05-21
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-05-20
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-05-20
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2008-05-20
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-05-19
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
There is no implementation report for this document.  This is its 
  second time this specification is going to Draft Standard.  Do the …
[Ballot discuss]
There is no implementation report for this document.  This is its 
  second time this specification is going to Draft Standard.  Do the
  changes from the first time though have any impact on the content of
  the implementation report?
2008-05-19
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-05-19
06 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-05-15
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Barry Leiba.
2008-05-13
06 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-13
06 Lisa Dusseault Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22 by Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-13
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-13
06 Lisa Dusseault Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-13
06 Lisa Dusseault Created "Approve" ballot
2008-05-01
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-04-30
06 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

QUESTION: should we list both RFC4021 and this document as
references for the Permanent Message Header Field Names listed
below, or …
IANA Last Call comments:

QUESTION: should we list both RFC4021 and this document as
references for the Permanent Message Header Field Names listed
below, or just this document?

ACTION: Upon approval of this document, IANA will add "standard"
to the status field and "[RFC-resnick-2822upd-06.txt]" to the
reference field for the following assignments in the Permanent
Message Header Field Names registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html

Header Field Name  Protocol
-----------------  --------
Date              mail
From              mail
Sender            mail
Reply-To          mail
To                mail
Cc                mail
Bcc                mail
Message-ID        mail
In-Reply-To        mail
References        mail
Subject            mail
Comments          mail
Keywords          mail
Resent-Date        mail
Resent-From        mail
Resent-Sender      mail
Resent-Cc          mail
Resent-Bcc        mail
Resent-Reply-To    mail
Resent-Message-ID  mail
Return-Path        mail
Received          mail

We understand the above to be the only IANA action for this
document.
2008-04-26
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2008-04-26
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2008-04-23
06 Samuel Weiler Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Sam Hartman was rejected
2008-04-12
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman
2008-04-12
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman
2008-04-03
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-04-03
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-04-03
06 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2008-04-03
06 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lisa Dusseault
2008-04-03
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-04-03
06 (System) Last call text was added
2008-04-03
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-03-28
06 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lisa Dusseault
2008-03-28
06 Lisa Dusseault Draft made it to printed form for AD Evaluation :)
2008-03-20
06 Lisa Dusseault State Change Notice email list have been change to presnick@qualcomm.com, draft-resnick-2822upd@tools.ietf.org, tony@att.com from presnick@qualcomm.com, draft-resnick-2822upd@tools.ietf.org
2008-03-20
06 Lisa Dusseault
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Tony Hansen

    Has the
    Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of …
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Tony Hansen

    Has the
    Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
    and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
    for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

yes, yes

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
    the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
    have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
    have been performed?

yes
no

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
    needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
    security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
    internationalization or XML?

no

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
    issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
    and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or
    she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
    concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event, if
    the interested community has discussed those issues and has
    indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
    those concerns here.

no

  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
    this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
    individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
    community as a whole understand and agree with it?

the email community as a whole is behind the effort.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    entered into the ID Tracker.)

A couple individuals have disagreed with the effort happening without a
working group. No one has threatened an appeal.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
    document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
    http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
    http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are not
    enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all
    formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
    type and URI type reviews?

== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,
    even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

A variation of the 2119 boilerplate was chosen.

== Missing Reference: 'CFWS' is mentioned on line 595, but not defined

This is a bug in the nit checker: it's defined on line 602.

-- Possible downref: Undefined Non-RFC (?) reference : ref. 'CFWS'

This is a bug in the nit checker: it appears to refer to the widowed
split of the quoted-string definition that gets split across two pages.

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  822
    (Obsoleted by RFC 2822)

intentional

== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
    draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-06

will be updated in RFC Editor pass

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
    informative?
yes
    Are there normative references to documents that are
    not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
no
    If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
    completion?
n/a
    Are there normative references that are downward
    references, as described in [RFC3967]?
no
    If so, list these downward
    references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
    for them [RFC3967].
n/a

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
    consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
    the document?

yes

    If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
    reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?

yes

    Are the
    IANA registries clearly identified?

yes

    If the document creates a new
    registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
    registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
    Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
    [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

n/a

    If the document
    describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
    Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
    Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

n/a

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
    document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
    BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
    automated checker?

The ABNF has been verified with Bill Fenner's ABNF parser. The only

; specials defined but not used

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
    Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
    Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
    "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
    announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
        introduction of the document.  If not, this may be an
        indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
        introduction.

This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages.  This specification is a revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.

    Working Group Summary

        Was there anything in the discussion in the interested
        community that is worth noting?  For example, was there
        controversy about particular points or were there decisions
        where the consensus was particularly rough?  Was the document
        considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
        work item there?

No working group is currently extant on core email formats. Subsequently, this document was reviewed on the ietf-822 mailing list, which had been set up by DRUMS. Pointers to the discussions there were periodically sent to other mailing lists populated with email people, such as ietf-smtp, the EAI working group, the LEMONADE working group, and the IMAP-EXT working group.

The current document represents consensus garnered on that list.

    Document Quality

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
        the specification?

The current document represents implementation experience from the past 7 years in email since RFC 2822 was published. As an update intended to move the internet message format to Draft Standard status, the key issues was to remove features not implemented by vendors and to tighten down the specification to represent what has been implemented.

Are there any reviewers that merit special
        mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
        resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document
        had no substantive issues?  If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
        Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)?  In
        the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request
        posted?

A number of reviewers from the email community were involved, including such notables as Ned Freed, John Klensin, and Dave Crocker.
2008-03-20
06 Lisa Dusseault Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state Publication Requested
2008-02-07
06 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-06.txt
2008-01-28
05 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-05.txt
2008-01-15
04 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt
2007-10-03
03 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-03.txt
2007-05-30
02 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-02.txt
2007-04-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-01.txt
2006-06-20
00 (System) New version available: draft-resnick-2822upd-00.txt