Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-as-29
review-ietf-emailcore-as-29-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2026-06-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-as
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 29)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2026-06-28
Requested 2026-06-18
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Dr. John C. Klensin , Ken Murchison
I-D last updated 2026-07-02 (Latest revision 2026-06-11)
Completed reviews Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Scott Rose (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -26 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -26 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Shivan Kaul Sahib (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -28 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -28 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -28 by Shivan Kaul Sahib (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -29 by Dirk Von Hugo
Dnsdir Telechat review of -29 by David C Lawrence
Assignment Reviewer Dirk Von Hugo
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-emailcore-as by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Qwu5lBqEKiuF-gCfEWcdlqvsgoE
Reviewed revision 29
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-06-28
review-ietf-emailcore-as-29-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2026-06-28-00
Dear all
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-emailcore-as.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/

The document serves as necessary Applicability Statement (AS) for updates of
email protocols SMTP and IMF. From my point of view it is quite clearly written
and I want to thank all contributors and both editors as well as all reviewers
so far. Some comments: I think readability could be improved when some
abbreviations would be expanded when first used in the document as e.g.,
Extended HELLO (EHLO), Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), and Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) Furthermore in the introduction >[RFC2026], Section 3.2< may be
exchanged by >(as defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC2026])< In ch. 4.3 Isuggest to
replace >specs< by >specifications< and >charset< by >character set< Finally in
ch. 6.1.3 a >)< is missing after (Require TLS [RFC8689]

Thanks and best regards
Dirk