On Sun, Mar 11, 2007, Eric A. Hall wrote:
http://www.ehsco.com/misc/I-Ds/draft-hall-prdr-00.txt
Some comments:
Section 4.4: It might be better to enumerate the two alternative
cases so they can be referenced easier from other sections of the
text.
4.5.1: ``the exact character sequence of "353"''
shouldn't that be ``the reply code 353''?
4.5.2 second to last paragraph:
SMTP clients MUST record each of the response lines as they are
->
SMTP clients MUST record each positive response code as they are
Section 4.5.3 should be simplified: just refer to RFC (2)821
how to handle "The Final Response Code".
Similar for Section 4.6: it should be reduced to:
SMTP clients MUST treat per-recipient responses as if they
had been received in response to the original RCPT TO commands,
and MUST treat a final response line as if it were a traditional
response to the message data. For details see RFC (2)821.
This text should only explain how PRDR changes the processing
compared to RFC (2)821 and for everything else it should refer to
that RFC. This makes the text much shorter and easier to understand
-- whoever has implemented an MTA that follows RFC (2)821 needs
only to know what changes are necessary. Otherwise the implementor
needs to read all these details and compare them to RFC (2)821 to
see whether it matches the "known"/"defined" behavior of an MTA.