[apps-review] Review of -- draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00
Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 08 September 2011 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0111021F8B36 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1guboKuc-wph for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5169C21F8AF4 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (adsl-68-122-32-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.32.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p88D5RDx011450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:05:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4E68BD97.8050601@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:05:27 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Murray Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Apps Review <apps-review@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-review] Review of -- draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:03:42 -0000
I've been asked to do an appsarea review of this draft. Review: Title: The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-00 Reviewer: D. Crocker Review Date: 8 Sept 11 Summary: Multipart/Report is an established format for sending reports. It is defined as a MIME media type, motivated by the need to have a standardized format for sending email handling reports. (After the end of an SMTP transfer session, the receiving server still might need to report back to the author or originator. It must send this in an independent email. This media type provides a standardized means of packaging and identifying such reports.) The draft promises a set of minor, non-normative document cleanup changes, and one significant normative change, that of removing a restriction on use of the media type. This change permits the media type to be nested within a MIME structure, rather than being limited to the top level. The restriction was motivated by the original, primary usage scenario for email reporting, but has proved problematic for other scenarios, including something as simple as forwarding a received report(!) Major Issues: None. In pedagogical terms, the need for this change demonstrates the important difference between documenting a usage restriction that applies only to a particular scenario, versus imposing an inherent restriction to the underlying data type. Confusing the two limits utility of the data type. (Formally, the confusion here was between the "packaging" of the data type and the scenario usage of the data type.) Minor Issues: Appendix A (Document History) needs a note to the RFC Editor to remove the section before publishing. Nits: The document repairs non-normative usage of normative vocabulary, to eliminate confusion. It also changes normative vocabulary to be upper case, to aid detection. However it appears that some of these changes were missed: > 3. The multipart/report Media Type ... > generated, for a human reader who may not have a user agent may -> might > report. The text in the first section may be in any MIME may -> MAY {{ I believe. /d }} > details not present in the first body part that may be useful to may -> might > Return of content may be wasteful of network bandwidth and a variety may -> can > 4. The text/rfc822-headers Media Type ... > to make them legal 7-bit content, they may be encoded with quoted- may -> MAY > 6. Security Considerations ... > reports may cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was may -> can d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [apps-review] Review of -- draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [apps-review] Review of -- draft-ietf-appsawg… Murray S. Kucherawy