Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt> (Registration of Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header fields for use in Internet Mail) to Informational RFC

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

I'm fine with your judgment of what to incorporate or not.  Mykyta

17.09.2011 17:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Mykyta,
> Thank you for the review. My answers are below.
>
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> So some small comments:
>>
>> 1) A nit in Change controller field for all the header fields: you 
>> should either change it to IESG ([e-mail]) or IETF with 
>> subsequent address [e-mail].
>
> I don't think this is a big deal either way, but I've changed to IESG.
>
>> 2) Also, it might be useful to point out in the sub-sections of 
>> Section 3 which ABNF productions do the header fields match.
>>
>> 3) Section 4:
>>
>>>   Terms not defined here are taken from [RFC5322] and [RFC2156].
>>
>> You probably missed RFC 5234 (with e. g. <DQUOTE>) here.
>
> Right.
>
>> Some ABNF nits:
>>
>> 4)
>>
>>>      military-string = 1*69( ps-char )
>>
>> No harm to change it to "1*69ps-char"
>
> No, but the original is a bit more readable.
>
>> 5)
>>
>>>      std-precedence = "deferred" / "routine" / "priority" /
>>>                       "immediate" / "flash" / "override"
>>>      std-message-type = "exercise" / "operation" / "project" /  "drill"
>>
>> Is there an ability to extend the allowed range of parameters here?
>
> No. Numeric values are for extensibility.
>
>> 6)
>>
>>>      nonneg-integer = "0" / (NZ-DIGIT *DIGIT)
>>
>> Should this be
>>
>>>      nonneg-integer = "0" / ( [ "+" ] NZ-DIGIT *DIGIT)
>>
>> as non-negative integer implies that it may be prepended by "+" (as 
>> well as zero - I don't know exactly).
>
> I would rather leave this as is, there is no need for "+" and some 
> people already implemented the currect ABNF.
>
>> 7)
>>
>>>      military-string-sequence = military-string
>>>                          [ [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string-sequence ]
>>
>> I think
>>
>>>      military-string-sequence = military-string
>>>                          [ [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string ]
>>
>> is just the same but improves readability (unless you make this 
>> intentionally, but I see no reason).
>
> The original definition is recursive. What you've suggested is 
> incorrect, because it only allowes 2 values (with optional FWS, etc. 
> in between).
>
> So the correct form would be:
>
> military-string-sequence = military-string
>                         *( [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string )
>
>> 8)
>>
>>>      Subject-Indicator-Codes = "MMHS-Subject-Indicator-Codes:"
>>>                                [FWS] [sic-sequence] [FWS] CRLF
>>
>> Can the header field appear to be:
>>
>>>      MMHS-Subject-Indicator-Codes:
>>
>> as you allow.  Maybe removing [] around sic-sequence?
>
> Yes, good point. Another person also pointed this out.
>
>> 9) I'd like you hereby disallowed further registration of header 
>> fields beginning with "MMHS", likewise RFC 5504 "Downgraded" prefix 
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5504#page-18).
>
> I think other people already commented on this. So no change.
>
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>>
>> 14.09.2011 22:53, The IESG wrote:
>>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
>>> consider
>>> the following document:
>>> - 'Registration of Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header 
>>> fields
>>>     for use in Internet Mail'
>>> <draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>>
>
>