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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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
>