Message Submission for Mail
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03
Yes
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-23)
Unknown
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. --- idnits says... -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4409, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. --- 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. --- Maybe the Abstract should mention what type of messages (i.e. mail) the document handles? --- 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. --- 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. Similarly section 8 paragraph 3
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-24)
Unknown
This document seems clear and well-written. thanks.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-23)
Unknown
WRT to anchor36: Do we expect the RFC editor to ask the IESG before or after the telechat? I think you could delete it prior to publication. Appendix B: You could strike 5322 from the list because it's an informative reference.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-19)
Unknown
Given that start-tls is (as stated) the most common way to secure the submission channel, perhaps the mention of IPsec in 3.3 would be better replaced with a reference to start-tls? typo in IANA cnosiderations? "The table in Table 1..." s/table/text/?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown