Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry (A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes) to BCP

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:07:37 +0000

The IESG wrote:

>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>
>- 'A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes '
>   <draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04.txt> as a BCP
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2008-04-09. Exceptionally, 
>comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please 
>retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
>The file can be obtained via
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04.txt
>
I've reviewed this document and support its publication.

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:47 +0000

> I've reviewed this document and support its publication.

Based on some hallway discussions in Philadelphia, I suggest that the 
following RFC editor note be kept (after some rephrasing) in the 
document upon publication:

NOTE: This table is incomplete. The entries denoted "Not given"
should be filled in better. (RFC EDITOR NOTE: Remove this note on
publication.)

The reason for keeping the note is to make sure that the table doesn't 
list all allowed SMTP response codes. Without such note there is a risk 
that server implementors will think that no other SMTP response code is 
allowed for a particular enhanced status code.