[Uta] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with COMMENT)

"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 16 December 2015 14:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151216145807.24035.75363.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:58:07 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/wMX1a5GQLjtZWhL6RXsdk2g8SO8>
Cc: uta@ietf.org, uta-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org, leifj@sunet.se
Subject: [Uta] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Introduction, you say that ths document replaces Section 2.4 of
RFC 2595.  It appears that it's specifically Section 3 that replaces that
section.  Maybe it's best to say that?

-- Section 2 --

   reference identifier:  (as defined in [RFC6125]) One of the domain
      names associated by the email (i.e., an SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
      ManageSieve) client with the target email server and optionally an
      application service type for performing name checks on the server
      certificate.

1. You refer to the definition in 6125 as though you're repeating it
here, but you're not: you're giving a different definition.  Maybe if you
said "formally defined in RFC 6125" instead, it'd be clearer that this
explanation is applying that formal definition to this specific situation
(email).

2. It's usually bad to put a parenthesized explanation in the middle of a
unit, and "email client" is a unit here.  (And, as almost always, I think
"i.e." is unnecessary and further distracting.)

3. The sentence is long and awkward, saying "associated by... with... and
optionally...," and it's easy to get lost.

Here's a suggestion:
NEW
   reference identifier:  (formally defined in [RFC6125]) One of the
      domain names that the email client (SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
ManageSieve)
      associates with the target email server.  The identifier can also
      include an application service type for performing name checks on
      the server certificate.
END

[Uta] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-uta-email-t… Barry Leiba