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
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smt… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov… Alexey Melnikov