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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

wfm
thanks for engaging
adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 24 August 2011 01:10
> To: Adrian Farrel; The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
(with
> COMMENT)
> 
> 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