Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Sean Shen 沈烁 wrote:

>Hi, EAI WG and Authors,
>
Dear Sean,

>I read the draft and have the a few comments.
>
Thank you for the comments.

>#1
>Usually the "Abstract" is after "Status of this Memo" and "Copyright
>Notice", right before the "Table of Contents". I went back to check previous
>versions and found that 01 and 02 is in right order. Wondering why this
>modification happened.
>
The order of sections in drafts has changed recently, so this change was 
intended.

>#2
>section 3.2.2
>Proper alignments are needed for procedure description part. Usually no
>first line indent is needed for each step. 
>In step 1, substeps are numbered as step 1.a and 1.b, without indents. But
>in step 4, substeps are numbered as 1, 2, ...7, with indents. The substeps
>of step 4 has the same numbering as top level steps.
>
Ok. I can ask RFC Editor to fix that.

>#3
>section 3.2.3
>I didn't understand the first sentence of this section: 
>  "The Unknown Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields SHOULD be left
>   as they are unless the MUA has special knowledge of a particular
>   field. " 
>  
>
Downgrade document specifies a way to preserve "unknown" header fields 
(i.e. header fields not known to the downgrade process). This sentence 
is trying to say that a client that understands a specific "unknown" 
header field, may apply the procedure defined in the downgrade-display 
document. Otherwise such header fields should be left as is.

>Also I noticed that "above" and "below" are used in a few places. These are
>not necessary when you already clearly refer to the exact sections.
>  
>
I will let editors to comment on the rest of your comments.

>#4
>section 4
>The first paragraph describes a scenario that "Downgraded-From" header field
>can not be reconstructed. But it's not clear then what will happen. Any
>security effects?
>The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and
>rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more about
>security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security
>consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. This
>should be clarified.
>
>Best,
>
>Sean
>