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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 E99F121F855B; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 i2bgaNVRgIMI; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FFB21F8575; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4M073FV029238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337645237; i=@elandsys.com; bh=jM4kkq/ajasf4w8DaqTRlxzesL3qxLwCFqKKlCc9NZQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=eRr6VuRyGecimFcbUEBbJ7eRnUjr1lOA5EBB8kRIHvVJJu5W5K3SIoRw+4hkEn0m8 /8om31ctSEUSGloOL/9K/XlmemekQ1+OZvWcRnRXaun4rIgSwcju6ndE0rgZ8vT0+b m1CM7Fs5S8il70GvUrHqGtvFnmgGJe5uWqjhyIic=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337645237; i=@elandsys.com; bh=jM4kkq/ajasf4w8DaqTRlxzesL3qxLwCFqKKlCc9NZQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iahJomVe6vzs34Fl/itp6cop2ZNzEDgVv9ktZrmI3simxpC/ig2dIFXPMiQEZBRYM qR8IR89Jk0Mni3/w4KWfewbwg/m9wiFcEFNPJkWfPVAqD5ksKa4EMkn1BPw/PVswSz 13B94ptRp6Z+IjihAkI2l3FGWshP2ZuiG41w+uP8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521165510.0a9d12c8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:05:37 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ_VHpJwK1ooGPjRXO7UnL6mpvkwiXZb9E-G9bhGX7S=A@mail.g mail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJ_VHpJwK1ooGPjRXO7UnL6mpvkwiXZb9E-G9bhGX7S=A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.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: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:07:23 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 16:41 21-05-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
>[Re-sending this with the correct draft alias (without the version number).]

Thanks.  I preferred not resend the message to avoid generating mail traffic.

>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.

Ok.

>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.

I'll stay out of that discussion.

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

That was my first thought.

I consider the comments were addressed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy