Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2024-10-25-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 44) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-11-01 | |
| Requested | 2024-10-11 | |
| Requested by | Murray Kucherawy | |
| Authors | Dr. John C. Klensin | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-05-20 (Latest revision 2025-07-31) | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -31
by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
(diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -31 by Ted Lemon (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -32 by Tim Wicinski (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -35 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -38 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -42 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Prior Last Call review for the selected directorates show "Assigned" and are past due (Last Call ended 10/10 and no review appeared), so issuing fresh requests. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Wicinski |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/N59MwZVp4XG8Y52DzmR4QPp3CEA | |
| Reviewed revision | 32 (document currently at 44) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2024-10-25 |
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2024-10-25-00
All
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document is the underlying specification in electronic mail and its
movement across the internet.
I actually reviewed this document during the working group last call process,
and worked through several comments John L and John K addressed then.
I have been also following the DNSDIR review thread, and feel confident the are
addressing those issues to me satisfaction.
One Nit:
The acknowledgement section has this partial paragraph - some bad xml?
chetti contributed an analysis that clarified the ABNF productions
that implicitly reference other documents.