This draft specifies a SMTP extension. The IANA Considerations does not
mention registration in the the SMTP Service Extensions registry.
It certainly does, in the first paragraph:
This specification requests IANA to add the PRIORITY SMTP extension
to the "SMTP Service Extensions" registry (in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters).
There
should also be an indication about the extension being valid for the submit
port.
Section 3:
7. The PRIORITY extension is valid for the submission service
[RFC6409] and LTMP [RFC2033].
(Murray has already commented on the misspelling of "LMTP" here.)
This draft also defines the MT-Priority header field. It is quite unusual
for a SMTP extension specification to define a mail header field. If I had
an reservations about this draft, it would be on architectural grounds. The
draft tries really hard to transfer priority information over the Internet
and in a foreign environment.
This is my major concern about this protocol as well, as I note in the
PROTO writeup (which, unfortunately, can't be seen publicly because of
a limitation in the datatracker; perhaps I should post it here). I'm
interested in hearing whether others share this concern, and what the
community consensus is about it.
Barry, document shepherd
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf