[apps-discuss] draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 feedback

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Here are some comments on 2369bis draft.

Major/non-editorial issues:

In Abstract and Introduction, you only mention those List- header
fields that were specified in original RFC 2369 but not the introduced
'List-Sequence'.

While you define 8 header fields, you provide ABNF for only one of
them.  Whereas the syntax is clear from Section 2, at least one header
field ('List-Post') may contain a value different from the URI (I mean
"NO"), so there is a need to define formal syntax here.  I think it's
a rather simple thing to do:

List-Help = "List-Help:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List  [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Subscribe = "List-Subscribe:" Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Unsubscribe = "List-Unsubscribe:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Post = "List-Post:" [ CFWS ] ( Uri-List / "NO" ) [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Owner = "List-Owner:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Archive = "List-Archive:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
Uri-List = "<" URI ">" *("," [ FWS ] "<" URI ">")
            ; whereas <URI> is defined in RFC 3986 and <FWS> and
<CFWS> in RFC 5322
List-Sequence = "List-Sequence:" seq-id
            ; <seq-id> already defined

I tried to follows those recommendation you set in Section 2; and of
course this in no way is meant to be a perfect choice for definition.

You could provide a wider description of 'List-Sequence' and how it is
different from 'Message-ID'.

Section 6: why you don't register the newly introduced 'List-Sequence'
as required by RFC 3864 by only asking IANA to update the existing
registrations?

Editorial issues:

In Abstract and Introduction, please distinguish the scheme name
'mailto', probably s/mailto/'mailto'/.

Section 2:

   By this mechanism, protocols like http may be
   specified while still providing the basic mailto support for those
   clients who do not have access to non-mail protocols.

Did you mean "URI scheme" under "protocol" here?  These are not
synonymous, as there may be different scheme names for one protocol ot
one scheme may use different protocols.  This should be corrected, I
think.

Ibid, para 5:  "mailto" protocol -> "mailto" URI scheme.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev