Re: Final draft: draft-crocker-email-arch

On 2007-05-06 14:59:06 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I've sent in draft-crocker-email-arch-07 to the I-D folks.
>
> The html version is at:
>
>  <http://bbiw.net/specifications/draft-crocker-email-arch-07.html>
>
> After two years and six major revisions, this is the version that will be 
> submitted to the IESG for standardization.
>
> If you have any final comments, please get them to me.
Very nice, overall.

I haven't read the previous drafts (although I think I was already
subscribed to this list when -06 came out - I certainly remember seeing
some discussion), so I apologize if the matters I noticed have already
been discussed to death. This is almost certainly the case for the
first one:

* Envelope:
  I find the usage of the term envelope for the combination of the SMTP
  envelope and part of the header very unusual and somewhat confusing,
  despite the explanation in 4.1.1. (especially since it is first used
  in 2.2.3). I also don't really see a reason for it: Why not keep
  envelope and header separate and merely note that MTAs may add some
  information to the header?

* 3.3.1 Message-ID: 

  "it is associated with the RFC2822.From field, ..." How so? I don't
  see any conceptual association between the From and the Message-ID
  field: While some MUAs may use (parts of) the From field in generating
  the Message-ID, others ignore it.

* 4.1 Message Data:

  "Message Filtering (SIEVE)". It might be worth pointing out that while
  SIEVE is the only filtering language specified in an RFC, other such
  languages are in use.

* 4.1.4 Identity references in a message:
  
  RFC2822.BCC: "An MUA will typically make separate postings for TO and
  CC recpients, versus BCC recipients". Is this really typical? In my
  experience, the message is normally only posted once, with the BCC
  header removed, and all recipients in the envelope. 

* 5.1 Aliasing:

  "It resubmits the message, replacing the envelope address, on behalf
  of the mailbox address that was listed in the envelope". It would be
  clearer if the sentence read "... replacing the envelope recipient
  address ...". 

* 5.3 Mailing Lists

  "... can be viewed as an elaboration of the Re-Director role"
  Since the previous section is called "Re-Sending" and not
  "Re-Directing", that probably should be "... of the Re-Sender role".

        hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate 
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | with an emu on his shoulder.
| |   | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at         |
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |    -- Sam in "Freefall"

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature