Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

[Re-sending this with the correct draft alias (without the version number).]

> I could have classified this under nits.  The authors already understand
> that it is not really an issue.

Understood also.  Still, opinion:

>>  Message Submission Agents MUST implement a policy that only allows
>>  authenticated users (or only certain groups of authenticated users)
>>  to specify message transfer priorities, and MAY restrict maximum
>>  priority values different groups of users can request, or MAY
>>  override the priority values specified by MUAs.
>
> I would have used a "SHOULD only allow authenticated users" and explain that
> there is a policy override.  It's to get around the "MUST implement a
> policy".

I think I actually prefer it the way it is, because it highlights the
key point that this is all a policy decision.  If, in fact, an
implementation should allow a policy that everyone's considered
authenticated, and some deployment should choose that policy, I'd be
fine with it... because they have chosen their policy.

>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>> document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
>> appear in ALL CAPS.
>
> I suggest "upper case" instead of "ALL CAPS".

As this is my text, which I gave Alexey, I clearly prefer "ALL CAPS".
I like that it's demonstrative.  On the other hand, the discussion on
ietf.org about whether this is a wise idea or not brings up other
issues of more substance.

>  "The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is increased by 15
>   characters by the possible addition of the MT-PRIORITY keyword
>   and value."
>
> RFC 5321 uses the term "octets" instead of "characters".

I'd put this as a minor issue, rather than a nit, and strongly suggest
that it be changed.

Barry