Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
RFC 5337

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-03)
No email
send info
ABNF compiles. But only after changing indents in Section 4 to be the same as those in Section 3 (two vs. three spaces). No time to check whether this is a real problem or something that Bill's parser just does...

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-03)
No email
send info
I think the ABNF could be improved and be made easier to verify. I know there are a lot of baggage in the ABNF usage in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822. However, I think the following improvement could be done:

- Put in the equivalent of import clause for different rules. What I mean is that for a rule defined in another document, like "atext"

xtext = <xtext is defined in [RFC3461]>

That way a reader know from where it is comming. That is especially important when it comes to extension clauses, i.e. =/ constructions. It will also not show up as undefined in parsing. Thus allowing one to easier verify the real undefines from the ones that are imported from other documents.

(Chris Newman) Recuse