Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 12 July 2012 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B1A21F8806 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.379, 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 rCILoiZmza4Y for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22AA21F8805 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1342090069; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=8JRP4SRnUrGry3iM0N3YiBcljzAhx0v04EcbneUT4Hs=; 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=hNIseNxLJAqWvdVe73vMHpK1Xph87njpojxIAvM6JXoA4Qa4LoTIK6ryBq2WUF1xtUDrqr 0Dn2GDrYXtdsjloWZOB81RA6BBOQ7oE4cq3pkMC4TD44eXMnRDgVwvpig/wKqBbPecRZr7 YxAeLdCaZnAYtLjUuXhTdLOlnQzG8nk=;
Received: from [192.168.1.144] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T=6rVAAkRE-5@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:47:48 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4FFEAB58.5030700@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:47:52 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnXjDdsu2m-8ocGdEoA761qUAV_KctXJCsecNg3H+R1bbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXjDdsu2m-8ocGdEoA761qUAV_KctXJCsecNg3H+R1bbA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:46:59 -0000

Hi Martin,
Thank you for the review.

On 08/06/2012 18:47, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02
> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
> Review Date: 2012-06-08
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-02
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Experimental
> RFC, with one question.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
> I'm not sure that I agree with the SHOULD strength requirement on MSAs
> or MTAs to strip mt-priority headers.  There's a marked difference
> between failure to meet local preconditions for compliance and
> whatever conditions some other MTA might place on mt-priority
> observance.  GIven that each hop is expected to make their own
> determination about priority anyway, what benefit is there in removing
> information that might inform that choice?
Are you talking about the Security Considerations section?

When relaying to non MT-PRIORITY-capable MTAs, the sender already has to 
remove all MT-Priority header fields (MUST level requirement), because 
it has to insert the priority value it calculated according to its 
policy into a new MT-Priority header field. The calculated value might 
be different from the value it received.

But now that I am looking at the two sections ("Security Considerations" 
and "Relay of messages to non-conforming SMTP servers"), they might be 
out of sync as far as requirements are concerned. So I need to tweak one 
or both of them to match.

> Nits/editorial comments:
> Section 7, check grammar: "within a close environment) ."

Fixed, thanks (s/close/closed).

> Section 7.1: I don't like statements like "has pros and cons" without
> any guidance.  The pros and cons are probably easy to describe (they
> seem intuitively obvious), so they are either important enough to
> describe or not worth mentioning at all.  Either is better than the
> tease.

This is just trying to say that none of the solutions is perfect for 
everybody. I will try to reword.