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 |