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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 24 May 2012 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734AA21F85F7; Thu, 24 May 2012 01:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YEGzM-EUhc8X; Thu, 24 May 2012 01:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566C821F85F4; Thu, 24 May 2012 01:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1337848197; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=3gv1huLXVCbT9mJKZ7z7PTwyJYUuK6IgKJg7Kn9aOcg=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=hIPOtSSTcQmUIJuBR1TkrpW54Ss1Jqmi5LLRosb+AY70d6ZWnTpQibx4PJdZNO0vFIddEs of26kIcofi8UsfL+5fbKZSjB+EYYz7LJW68sGIRkfrIzYIhxuvoAH61smumoRXbqmdUuMA u23NWt4OPt2XRNaCCHqU3wFFyCSOSi0=;
Received: from [192.168.1.144] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T73xhAAE4xOu@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:29:57 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4FBDF199.2050300@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:30:17 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:29:59 -0000

Hi SM,
Thanks for the review.

On 21/05/2012 23:05, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
> this draft (for background on AppsDir, please see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate 
> ).
>
> The comments in this review do not bear more weight than comments 
> submitted by an individual during a Last Call.  It is suggested that 
> the author ask the document shepherd for guidance about any changes 
> suggested in a review.
>
> Please note that this is a follow-up to a previous review.
>
> Document: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13
> Title: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer 
> Priorities
> Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
> Review Date: May 21, 2012
> IETF Last Call Date: May 28, 2012
>
> Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>
> This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby messages 
> are sent with a priority to enable receivers to take this into 
> account.  The draft is well-written.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> In Section 10:
>
> I could have classified this under nits.  The authors already 
> understand that it is not really an issue.
>
>   "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 what you want to say here is to 
> implement a setting that is customizable.  You also get a default 
> where SMTP clients cannot abuse the feature.  I am ok with a "no text 
> change".

I tend to agree with Barry that this should remain MUST.

> Nits:
>
> I recommend taking anything beyond this point off-list if feedback is 
> desired.  Nits do not have to be addressed as it is an editorial 
> decision.
>
> In the Abstract:
>
>   "This memo defines an extension to the SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer
>    Protocol) service"
>
> You don't really need to expand SMTP.
>
> In Section 1:
>
>   "This specification defines this mechanism by specification of
>    an SMTP [RFC5321] extension."
>
> The term "service extension" is generally used.
>
> In Section 2:
>
>   '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".

I leave it to Barry and others to decide :-).

> In Section 3:
>
>   "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".

Changed.

> In Section 4.1:
>
>   "The SMTP server MAY also alter the message priority (to lower or to
>    raise it)"
>
> I suggest: (lower or raise it)".

If you don't mind, I leave this sort of stuff to RFC Editor.
>
> The specification specifies that the service extension is valid on the 
> Submission port.  I don't see this mentioned in the IANA 
> Considerations Section.  It can be done during the interaction with IANA.

This is the default (IANA's web page says that all extensions are 
suitable for Submission port, unless specified otherwise). But I will 
add a clarifying sentence.
>
> Appendix C:
>
>  "Communication systems used during an emergency or disaster are
>   realized in several forms."
>
> I'll suggest:
>
>   There are several forms of communication systems used during an 
> emergency
>   or disaster.

Changed in my copy.

Thanks,
Alexey