Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11-genart-lc-fossati-2024-04-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-04-29
Requested 2024-04-15
Authors Pete Resnick
I-D last updated 2024-04-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Thomas Fossati
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang
Artart Last Call review of -11 by Joseph Yee
Assignment Reviewer Thomas Fossati
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/YsSgHagCxTp5iwO3ShcE7eDJM5o
Reviewed revision 11
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-04-21
review-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11-genart-lc-fossati-2024-04-21-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2024-04-21
IETF LC End Date: 2024-04-29
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

The document is clear and the changes from 5322 are fairly small-scale.

There are some small changes to 5322's ABNF which look syntactically OK
to me.  However, running the ABNF checker on
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11.txt returns:

* (234:23): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (236:28): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* (238:25): error: This parser will truncate strings at %x00
* parsing failed: 3 errors encountered

I don't understand what the error message is trying to tell me though.

Re: IANA Considerations.  There are changes in the registry schema and
the registration template to add the trace indicator.  The instructions
are clear.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

1. It'd be good to state the reasons why this document updates 3864
earlier than in §6.1.  [1] recommends using the intro section for that.

2. Any reason for using the .test TLD rather than .example?  RFC2606
says: ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
related code. ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as
examples.

[1] https://authors.ietf.org/required-content, Introduction checklist 

Nits/editorial comments:

In §1.2.3:

OLD:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that there are
  long-established sites on the Internet with mail archives that go back
  decades, archives with messages containing these elements.

NEW:
  One reason for this latter requirement is that long-established
  Internet sites have mail archives dating back decades with messages
  containing these elements.

In §3.6.4:

OLD:
  Though listed as optional in the table (Table 1) in section 3.6

NEW:
  Though listed as optional in Table 1 of Section 3.6