Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 05:27 13-04-2009, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>
>- 'Internet Mail Architecture '
>    <draft-crocker-email-arch-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the

In the Introduction section:

   "The underlying technical standards for Internet Mail comprise a rich
    array of functional capabilities.  The specifications form the core:

       *  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [RFC0821], [RFC2821],
          [RFC5321] moves a message through the Internet.

       *  Internet Mail Format (IMF) [RFC0733], [RFC0822], [RFC2822],
          [RFC5321] defines a message object."

RFC 733 was obsoleted by RFC 822.

Section 2.2.1 of the draft defines the Originator as:

  "The Originator ensures that a message is valid for posting and then
   submits it to a Relay."

In Section 2.2.3:

   "The basic test of Gateway design is whether an Author on one side of
    a Gateway can send a useful message to a Recipient on the other side,
    without requiring changes to any components in the Author's or
    Recipient's mail services other than adding the Gateway."

As it is the Originator doing the submission, "Author" should be 
replaced by "Originator" in the above paragraph.

In Section 3.4 of RFC 5322, it is mentioned that:

   "A mailbox receives mail.  It is a conceptual entity that does not
    necessarily pertain to file storage."

Section 3.1 of the draft has:

   "A mailbox sends and receives mail.  It is a conceptual entity
    which does not necessarily pertain to file storage."  [RFC5322]

In Section 3.3 of the draft:

   "The name is structured as a hierarchical sequence of names, separated by
    dots (.), with the top of the hierarchy being on the right end of the
    sequence.  There can be many names in the sequence -- that is, the
    depth of the hierarchy can be substantial."

Section 3.1 of RFC 1035 uses "sequence of labels" instead of 
"sequence of names".

Section 4.4 of the draft mentions that the the MIME Header is set by 
the Author.  It should be the Originator as that is done when the 
message is submitted.


        "RFC5321.ORCPT:   Set by - Author.

          This is an optional parameter to the RCPT command, indicating
          the original address to which the current RCPT TO address
          corresponds, after a mapping was performed during transit.  An
          ORCPT is the only reliable way to correlate a DSN from a multi-
          recipient message transfer with the intended recipient."

Table 1 lists ORCPT as being set by the Originator.

As the "RcptTo" is at the SMTP layer, it might be more appropriate to 
have it "Set By" the Originator instead of the Author.

        "RFC5321.Return-Path:   Set by - Originator

          The MDA records the RFC5321.MailFrom address into the
          RFC5322.Return-Path field."

The RFC5321.Return-Path looks like a typo.  It should be 
RFC5322.Return-Path and it is "Set by" the MDA according to the Table 1.

RFC 2298 is obsoleted by RFC 3798.  There is a typo (RFC 2304) in the 
reference for RFC3192.  If the author of the draft wants to reference 
RFC 2821 and RFC 2822, he could make it an Informative reference 
instead of a Normative reference.  The author of MAIL-I18N mentioned 
that the document should not be referenced in a modern architecture document.

Regards,
-sm