Re: [Emailcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-03

[Todd Herr <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:36 AM Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear EMAILCORE participants,
>
> This message starts 4 weeks WGLC call on
> draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-03 (Internet Message Format), that would
> end on May 27th 2022. Please send your comments, as well as statement of
> support (or not) for progressing this document in a reply to this email
> message, or in exceptional cases directly to EMAILCORE chairs
> <[e-mail]>
>

As a participant...

I reviewed the text and have only the following minor comments/nits:

   - Consistency of the definition of the term "MIME documents/MIME
   document series"
      - In Section 1.1, the “MIME document series” is defined as RFCs 2045,
      2046, and 2049;
      - In Section 2.1, the "MIME document series" is those three plus RFC
      2047 and BCP 13.
      - In Section 2.3, “the MIME documents” are RFCs 2045, 2046, 2049 and
      BCP 13.
   - Section 3.4, second paragraph - “A mailbox receives mail. It is a
   conceptual entity that does not necessarily pertain to file storage. For
   example, some sites may choose to print mail on a printer and deliver the
   output to the addressee's desk.” Do we still think this is true? Perhaps
   a more timely example would be better, or just strike the last sentence
   entirely?
   - Section 3.6.5 - Nitpick: ‘The "Subject:" field is the most common and
   contains a short string identifying the topic of the message.’ Not all
   subjects necessarily meet the arbitrary definition of “short”. Perhaps
   replace “short” with “character” or “text”?
   - Section 3.6.8 - “Fields may appear in messages that are otherwise
   unspecified in this document.” It would be more appropriate to write this
   as “Fields that are otherwise unspecified in this document may appear in
   messages.” I think, because the document, particularly this section, is
   specifying fields, not messages.
   - Section 5, Security Considerations. The thoughts here are certainly
   valid, but the text makes lots of references to risks to terminals and
   terminal emulators, and even I at my advanced age have but a foggy
   recollection of using such things. Can/should the language be updated to
   reference equipment that is much more likely to be used by current and
   future readers of this document?


-- 

*Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem
*e:* [e-mail]
*m:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.