Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Pete Resnick) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Ari Keränen helped me review this, and he said:

Should state in the abstract that this obsoletes and updated various RFCs.

3.  Changes to Message Header Fields

    Also note that messages in this format require the use of the
    &UTF8SMTPbis;

The "&UTF8SMTPbis;" looks like a processing error.


3.4.  Effects on Line Length Limits

    Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and
    recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters.  This
    specification changes the former limit to 988 octets.

What is the rationale behind the 988 octet limit?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

It would be nice to concentrate section 7 into "changes from RFC 5335" and retain it in the document.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Almost a total nit but p7 says "If this type is sent to a 7-bit only system, 
it has to have..." - to what does the "it" refer the emitter of the 
message or the 7-bit only system? Also - wouldn't saying "<somone>
MUST do <something>" not be clearer than saying "has to have"

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

The title page header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC 5335.
  Please add this fact to the abstract.

  The title page header indicates that this document updates RFC 2045.
  Please add this fact to the abstract.

  The title page header indicates that this document updates RFC 5322.
  Please add this fact to the abstract.

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

#1) Do the authors also wish to make RFC 5335 Historic?

#2) Please add a section that lists the difference between RFC 5335 and this
document.