Last Call Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-

Request Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-03-28
Requested 2012-03-01
Authors Alexey Melnikov, Ken Carlberg
Draft last updated 2012-03-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Roni Even
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Roni Even
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Chris Lonvick
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even 
State Completed
Review review-melnikov-smtp-priority-genart-lc-even-2012-03-14
Review completed: 2012-03-14


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–3–13

IETF LC End Date: 2012–3–28

IESG Telechat date:


Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track 




Major issues:


Minor issues:




In section 4.2  “In absence of both the MT-PRIORITY MAIL FROM parameter  and the MT-Priority header field, other message header fields, such  as Priority [RFC2156] and X-Priority, MAY be used for determining the  priority under this "Priority Message Handling" SMTP extension.” .      My understanding  from the third bullet in this section is that for this case the message priority is “0” so I am not clear what this sentence means and why is there a  difference if the MT-PRIORITY or MT-Priority values do exist with regards to “Priority” and “X-Priority” for this case.



In section 8 “MT-PRIORITY=3”. I did not see where 

the MT-PRIORITY SMTP  extension is specified and has the syntax of using “=” before the value.



Nits/editorial comments:




MUA is used in section 1 but expanded only in section 5. 



Some typos in section 5. 


syntatically – syntactically” “prioritiy – priority” “comminicate – communicate” “contraints –constraints”



In section 10 for X.3.TBD3 “Description:  The message mas accepted” I assume you meant “was”



In section D.2 first paragraph some typos 

“focusses –focuses” “comparision – comparison”