Skip to main content

Internet Message Format
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis@ietf.org, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, emailcore@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, superuser@gmail.com, todd.herr@valimail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Internet Message Format' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Internet Message Format'
  (draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11.txt) as Internet Standard

This document is the product of the Revision of core Email specifications
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Orie Steele.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax
   for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the
   framework of "electronic mail" messages.  This specification is a
   revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 5322, itself a revision of
   Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, all of which supersede Request For
   Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
   Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating
   incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Todd Herr. The Responsible
   Area Director is Murray Kucherawy.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note