Re: [yam] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with COMMENT)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for the review.

At 15:16 23-08-2011, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here 
>are some piddle-nits you might look at in the interest of making the 
>draft so highly polished that you can see your ^H^H^H face in it.

Polished drafts rarely make it to Full Standard. :-)

>---
>
>idnits says...
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4409, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

RFC 4409 obsoletes RFC 2476.  That RFC does not mention that fact in 
the Abstract.  The "should" might have been appropriate if the draft 
was not intended to be published as a Full Standard.

>---
>
>I think you are not supposed to include citations in the Abstract.
>On the other hand, it might be nice to include the reference to
>[SMTP-MTA] in the first paragraph of Section 1.

Yes.  That citation can be dropped from the Abstract.  I'll leave it 
to the editors to see whether they want to have the reference in the 
first paragraph of Section 1.

>---
>
>Maybe the Abstract should mention what type of messages (i.e. mail) the
>document handles?

I'll default to no change as the barrier for a change is higher than 
the usual IETF draft.  For what it is worth, the title of the 
specification is "Message Submission for Mail".

>---
>
>Section 2.2 does not need to include
>    In examples, "C:" is used to indicate lines sent by the client, and
>    "S:" indicates those sent by the server.  Line breaks within a
>    command example are for editorial purposes only.

Good catch.

>---
>
>Section 3
>
>In the last paragraph of the section there are some lower-case "must".
>Please be sure that you don't mean upper case.

The lower-case "must" is appropriate as the last paragraph of Section 
3 does not specify a requirement.

>Similarly section 8 paragraph 3

I gather that you may be referring to Section 8 paragraph 2.  The 
lower-case "must" is intentional.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy