ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09

2012-03-19 15:23:28
Hi Roni,
Thank you for your review.

On 13/03/2012 19:25, Roni Even wrote:

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012--3--13

IETF LC End Date: 2012--3--28

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.In section 4.2 "In absence of both the MT-PRIORITY MAIL FROM parameter and the MT-Priority header field, other message header fields, such as Priority [RFC2156] and X-Priority, MAY be used for determining the priority under this "Priority Message Handling" SMTP extension." . My understanding from the third bullet in this section is that for this case the message priority is "0" so I am not clear what this sentence means

Ah, good catch. The text should be another bullet point in the list.

and why is there a difference if the MT-PRIORITY or MT-Priority values do exist with regards to "Priority" and "X-Priority" for this case.

Basically there are existing header fields with similar semantics already in use, so people want to use them as the last resort. There was a bit of a debate about specific header fields during the IETF LC, so this text will hopefully be improved after the debate.

2.In section 8 "MT-PRIORITY=3". I did not see where the MT-PRIORITY SMTP extension is specified and has the syntax of using "=" before the value.

This is described by the following text in Section 3:

      One optional parameter ("MT-PRIORITY") is added to the
      MAIL FROM command. The value associated with this parameter is
      a decimal integer number from -9 to 9 (inclusive)
      indicating the priority of the email message.  The syntax of

In SMTP parameter values are separated with "=" from the corresponding parameter names.

Nits/editorial comments:

1.MUA is used in section 1 but expanded only in section 5.

2.Some typos in section 5. "syntatically -- syntactically" "prioritiy -- priority" "comminicate -- communicate" "contraints --constraints"

3.In section 10 for X.3.TBD3 "Description: The message mas accepted" I assume you meant "was"

4.In section D.2 first paragraph some typos "focusses --focuses" "comparision -- comparison"

All of these fixed in my copy, thanks!

Best Regards,
Alexey


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>