>> On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an
>> important term in the current document seems like a better solution.
> If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure.
Well, if the IETF has consensus :) I'm raising the issue during this last call
that "round
--On Friday, September 15, 2023 12:49 -0400 Paul Kyzivat
wrote:
> Document: draft-freed-smtp-limits-06
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2023-09-15
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-10-04
> IESG Telechat date: ?
>
> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
> described in th
John,
I appreciate your points. I understand that there are tradeoffs. Perhaps
we do need community input on this.
Normally I copy the wg on genart reviews. Since there was no wg here I
didn't do that, and forget to copy the Last Call list. How do I fix that
and include your reply? Should fu
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> Section 7.2 seems to conflate two things:
>
> - the information that must be provided in a specification
>document that registers new limits
>
> - the information that is to included in the registry itself
>
> ISTM that the registry itse
Murray, Paul,
Please stand by for half-written note... I should be able to
finish and post the next couple of hours.
john
--On Sunday, September 17, 2023 14:53 -0700 "Murray S.
Kucherawy" wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Paul Kyzivat
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Section 7.2 seems to confla
