Re: John C Klensin comments on mailserver URL scheme

>> After we've discussed these for a while, I'll batch up the responses
>> and send them to him.
>
>I think these are issues that need to be at least mentioned in the I-D
>before we resubmit it. In general, if we get flak in early stages of
>the standards process, it's better to fix the document to prevent
>getting the same flak when it goes to IESG, when it goes to 'last
>call', and finally when we go public.

I apologize if my comment made it sound like "we'll discuss it, not make
any changes, and I'll pass along a report." I very much would like to make
any clarifications needed in the I-D, even if that means another round or
two of the I-D. Certainly, if John had some misunderstandings about what
the mailserver URL scheme is meant to do (as I believe that he did), other
people will have the same misunderstandings and this is a very good time to
clarify what we have come to consensus on.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing