Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 19 March 2012 20:23 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 BF62B21E801C; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 tIO7hd9wUHBF; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9FE21E8029; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1332188576; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=rqvaxjtf3WiNjHNsarUHUKV2MhbQACiD3scAWaAa9yY=; 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=RroMnLipzVa1z8ZAkFGfa0Y8EB4nYfdV24nRrSBvECmOTiYCm9KLnd4+h5KIJrHTy71fDk jWDtK7bVI8+HNILavi8lsiH2fTPIalDjmbzyBlouQPK7YJ3ENdeKWP2UzBgZqusfEBidCU tHqT7i3gA3qGZgH6K4j7lVDwsRJ1bdk=;
Received: from [188.29.240.8] (188.29.240.8.threembb.co.uk [188.29.240.8]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T2eVlwBhup6a@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:22:52 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4F677B02.8090108@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:29:22 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
References: <4f5f9f50.6965b40a.7aaa.6114@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f5f9f50.6965b40a.7aaa.6114@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080501010100070202020004"
Cc: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:23:00 -0000

Hi Roni,
Thank you for your review.

On 13/03/2012 19:25, Roni Even 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-09
>
> Reviewer: Roni Even
>
> Review Date:2012--3--13
>
> IETF LC End Date: 2012--3--28
>
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard 
> track RFC.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 1.In section 4.2  "In absence of both the MT-PRIORITY MAIL FROM 
> parameter  and the MT-Priority header field, other message header 
> fields, such  as Priority [RFC2156] and X-Priority, MAY be used for 
> determining the  priority under this "Priority Message Handling" SMTP 
> extension." .      My understanding  from the third bullet in this 
> section is that for this case the message priority is "0" so I am not 
> clear what this sentence means
>
Ah, good catch. The text should be another bullet point in the list.
>
> and why is there a  difference if the MT-PRIORITY or MT-Priority 
> values do exist with regards to "Priority" and "X-Priority" for this case.
>
Basically there are existing header fields with similar semantics 
already in use, so people want to use them as the last resort.
There was a bit of a debate about specific header fields during the IETF 
LC, so this text will hopefully be improved after the debate.
>
> 2.In section 8 "MT-PRIORITY=3". I did not see where the MT-PRIORITY 
> SMTP  extension is specified and has the syntax of using "=" before 
> the value.
>
This is described by the following text in Section 3:

       One optional parameter ("MT-PRIORITY") is added to the
       MAIL FROM command. The value associated with this parameter is
       a decimal integer number from -9 to 9 (inclusive)
       indicating the priority of the email message.  The syntax of

In SMTP parameter values are separated with "=" from the corresponding 
parameter names.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> 1.MUA is used in section 1 but expanded only in section 5.
>
> 2.Some typos in section 5. "syntatically -- syntactically" "prioritiy 
> -- priority" "comminicate -- communicate" "contraints --constraints"
>
> 3.In section 10 for X.3.TBD3 "Description:  The message mas accepted" 
> I assume you meant "was"
>
> 4.In section D.2 first paragraph some typos "focusses --focuses" 
> "comparision -- comparison"
>
All of these fixed in my copy, thanks!

Best Regards,
Alexey