Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11-artart-lc-yee-2024-05-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-04-29 | |
| Requested | 2024-04-15 | |
| Authors | Pete Resnick | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-05-13 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -11
by Thomas Fossati
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Artart Last Call review of -11 by Joseph Yee (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joseph Yee |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/3wrQvnufj0YETbUp6bTOTi4rPkE | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2024-05-13 |
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11-artart-lc-yee-2024-05-13-00
Greeting all, I've reviewed the draft "draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis" version 11 and the draft is ready with some 'personal preference' nits. There are places with 'header fields' where 'header section' might be a better term. They are at Section 3.5 1st paragraph and 3rd paragraph as it is about the information in the 'header section'. However, I considered it more into personal preference rather than nits (or editorials that must be fixed). If editors/chairs or others considered 'header fields' is a better term I don't see any concern. 'Header Fields' are used in other places in the draft (such as section 2.2 and 3.6) and they are good that there's no need to change. Best Regards, Joseph Yee