Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03

Pete Resnick <> Tue, 17 May 2011 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DCFE0777 for <>; Tue, 17 May 2011 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.59
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYO4UUqKXJBQ for <>; Tue, 17 May 2011 14:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAF7E0744 for <>; Tue, 17 May 2011 14:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1305669398; x=1337205398; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; z=Message-ID:=20<>|Date:=20Tu e,=2017=20May=202011=2016:56:34=20-0500|From:=20Pete=20Re snick=20<>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv: |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20David=20Singer=20<singer@apple .com>|CC:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<>,=20P er=20Frojdh=0D=0A=09<>,=20S=20Moon esamy=20<>,=0D=0A=09<apps-discuss@iet>|Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-discuss]=20Apps-team=20revi ew=20of=09draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03|References:=20 <>=09<p062 40624c9d0cd69eff3@[]>=09<147FB978-70D1-452A-BA>=09<>=09<CA5320BA-CB80-4305-BB3A-3A543631>=09< >=20<> |In-Reply-To:=20<C9D4BCE5-771D-47D2-9E00-858B2DA0434E@app>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-88 59-1"=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207 bit|X-Originating-IP:=20[]; bh=etmuCDT78sI+CGlJsOh1hy/6qrqLg4O724Cik8W0eno=; b=JuOSHAvzJnR3SHIX8QEvxvaQ6KmJ+eXUvseZDMgBorWNDCgtk5Zo+Y2P N0whVp9IULFhXfDukyws6E1WVk6GaMa6LFe9FIt41HYsnVTcxTkTzxJO8 jsm/QmMuew99g+In98MAJcbxX5x52JsKt6e5PBzYtNfSShDp5sxEvOeoo w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6349"; a="91915625"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 May 2011 14:56:38 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,225,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="139793746"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 17 May 2011 14:56:38 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-4.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 17 May 2011 14:56:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:56:34 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <>
References: <> <p06240624c9d0cd69eff3@[]> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc: Randall Gellens <>, Per Frojdh <>, S Moonesamy <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:56:42 -0000

On 5/12/11 6:47 PM, David Singer wrote:

> -04 uploaded. what's next?

Almost time for me to Last Call the document. A few things:

I found one nit in -04 

   == Missing Reference: '13k' is mentioned on line 148, but not defined

I see that you used regular BNF and not ABNF. That's OK, but I would 
appreciate you (a) using a tool to syntax check the BNF and (b) pointing 
me to the output of that tool. My BNF is OK, but not great.

I will do a review of the document before sending it for Last Call, but 
I would appreciate if one of you could start writing up the announcement 
text. As it says in RFC 4858:

           The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
              Review, on what date was the request posted?

              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102