idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 22, 2010) is 5086 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC1034' is defined on line 195, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1035' is defined on line 198, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1123' is defined on line 201, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 205, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5234' is defined on line 208, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1305' is defined on line 218, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2045' is defined on line 226, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2046' is defined on line 230, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2047' is defined on line 234, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2049' is defined on line 238, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3864' is defined on line 245, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4021' is defined on line 249, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4288' is defined on line 252, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4289' is defined on line 256, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5321' is defined on line 260, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 822 (Obsoleted by RFC 2822) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1305 (Obsoleted by RFC 5905) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2822 (Obsoleted by RFC 5322) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4288 (Obsoleted by RFC 6838) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 YAM Working Group P. Resnick 3 Internet-Draft Qualcomm Incorporated 4 Intended status: Informational May 22, 2010 5 Expires: November 23, 2010 7 Preliminary Evaluation of RFC 5322 "Internet Message Format", for 8 advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working 9 Group 10 draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation-00 12 Abstract 14 This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 5322 "Internet Message 15 Format" for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It has been 16 prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group. 18 THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS 19 WRITTEN TO FACILITATE PROCESSING WITHIN THE IESG. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2010. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 1.1. Note to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Preliminary Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.2. Time in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.4. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.5. Non-Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2.6. Downward references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2.7. IESG Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 1. Introduction 73 A preliminary evaluation has been made of "Internet Message Format" 74 [RFC5322] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for advancing 75 it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests feedback from 76 the IESG on this decision. 78 1.1. Note to RFC Editor 80 This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is 81 written to facilitate processing within the IESG. 83 2. Preliminary Evaluation 85 2.1. Document 87 Title: Internet Message Format 89 Link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 91 2.2. Time in Place 93 RFC2026: _"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level 94 for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting 95 has occurred."_ 97 Published: October 2008 99 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience 101 RFC2026: _"significant implementation and successful operational 102 experience ... characterized by a high degree of technical 103 maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 104 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 105 community."_ 107 Confidence level: Very high. 109 [RFC5322] moved [RFC2822] from Proposed to Draft Standard, which 110 itself was an update of [RFC0822] done by the DRUMS WG. Both 111 [RFC5322] and [RFC2822] brought the protocol specifications into line 112 with actual implementations and operational experience in electronic 113 mail over the past 28 years. In that sense, the implementation and 114 operational experience with these documents has been extensive. 116 2.4. Proposed Changes 118 The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision: 120 Errata 1766: A simple clarifying editorial change, will be fixed. 122 Errata 1906: A request to simplify the ABNF of the obsolete (i.e., 123 backward compatability) syntax of the body of a message, will be 124 examined to see if the syntax can be simplified, though the 125 suggested syntax provided by the errata reporter is not correct as 126 stated. 128 Errata 1908: An error in the ABNF of the obsolete (i.e., backward 129 compatability) syntax of "folding white space" that does not agree 130 with the description in the document or the current practice, will 131 be fixed. 133 Errata 2104: An error in the ABNF of the obsolete (i.e., backward 134 compatability) syntax of "unstructured" text that does not agree 135 with the description in the document or the current practice, will 136 be fixed. 138 2.5. Non-Changes 140 The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes: 142 1. The Security Considerations section was extensively reviewed in 143 2008 (during the review and approval of RFC 5322). No evidence 144 has appeared since then that would require further review or 145 additional changes. 147 2.6. Downward references 149 At Full Standard, the following references would be downward 150 references: 152 None. 154 2.7. IESG Feedback 156 The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision. In 157 particular: 159 o Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a 160 move from Draft to Full Standard? 162 o Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support 163 for technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG 164 believe any additional changes are critical to advance this 165 document from draft to full standard? If so, please provide 166 sufficient information so the WG can address these issues prior to 167 IETF last call or determine that the document is inappropriate for 168 the YAM WG to process at this time. 170 o Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a 171 full standard? If not, please cite which specific downward 172 reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can 173 address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the 174 document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time. 176 3. IANA Considerations 178 This document contains no IANA actions. 180 4. Security Considerations 182 This document requests IESG feedback and does not raise any security 183 concerns. Security considerations forRFC 5322 [RFC5322] have been 184 taken into account during the preliminary evaluation and appear in 185 either Section 2.4 or Section 2.5 of this document. 187 5. References 189 5.1. Normative References 191 [ANSI.X3-4.1986] American National Standards Institute, "Coded 192 Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for 193 Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986. 195 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and 196 facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 198 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 199 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 201 [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - 202 Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, 203 October 1989. 205 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 206 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 208 [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for 209 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, 210 January 2008. 212 5.2. Informative References 214 [RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA 215 Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, 216 August 1982. 218 [RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) 219 Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, 220 March 1992. 222 [ISO.2022.1994] International Organization for Standardization, 223 "Information technology - Character code structure 224 and extension techniques", ISO Standard 2022, 1994. 226 [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet 227 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet 228 Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. 230 [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet 231 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", 232 RFC 2046, November 1996. 234 [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail 235 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions 236 for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996. 238 [RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet 239 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance 240 Criteria and Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996. 242 [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, 243 April 2001. 245 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, 246 "Registration Procedures for Message Header 247 Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, September 2004. 249 [RFC4021] Klyne, G. and J. Palme, "Registration of Mail and 250 MIME Header Fields", RFC 4021, March 2005. 252 [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type 253 Specifications and Registration Procedures", 254 BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. 256 [RFC4289] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Multipurpose Internet 257 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration 258 Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4289, December 2005. 260 [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 261 RFC 5321, October 2008. 263 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", 264 RFC 5322, October 2008. 266 Author's Address 268 Pete Resnick 269 Qualcomm Incorporated 270 5775 Morehouse Drive 271 San Diego, CA 92121-1714 272 US 274 Phone: +1 858 651 4478 275 EMail: presnick@qualcomm.com 276 URI: http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/