Last Call Review of draft-freed-smtp-limits-06
review-freed-smtp-limits-06-genart-lc-kyzivat-2023-09-15-00
| Request | Review of | draft-freed-smtp-limits |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2023-10-04 | |
| Requested | 2023-09-06 | |
| Authors | Ned Freed , Dr. John C. Klensin | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-09-15 | |
| Completed reviews |
Dnsdir Last Call review of -06
by Johan Stenstam
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Kyzivat |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-freed-smtp-limits by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/9xqsZIqxR0BdkBnaImoDpdsQ8i0 | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2023-09-15 |
review-freed-smtp-limits-06-genart-lc-kyzivat-2023-09-15-00
Document: draft-freed-smtp-limits-06 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2023-09-15 IETF LC End Date: 2023-10-04 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Minor Issue: How the new IANA registry is specified Section 7.2 seems to conflate two things: - the information that must be provided in a specification document that registers new limits - the information that is to included in the registry itself ISTM that the registry itself should contain the limit name and a reference to the specification document. It might also contain the value syntax, or at least an indication if a value is allowed. The descriptions of semantics, restrictions, and security considerations don't lend themselves to inclusion in the registry, but should be clearly spelled out in the specification. Also, the request for the new registry should probably include its exact name ("SMTP Server Limits"?), and that it should be included within the "MAIL Parameters" protocol registry. Otherwise IMO this document is in fine shape to move forward.