Last Call Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-
review-melnikov-smtp-priority-genart-lc-even-2012-03-14-00
| 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 | |
| Other Reviews |
Genart Last Call review of - by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Last Call review of - by Chris Lonvick (diff) |
|
| Review | State | Completed |
| Reviewer | Roni Even | |
| Review | review-melnikov-smtp-priority-genart-lc-even-2012-03-14 | |
| Posted at | http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07272.html | |
| Draft last updated | 2012-03-14 | |
| Review completed: | 2012-03-14 |
Review
review-melnikov-smtp-priority-genart-lc-even-2012-03-14
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09 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 RFC . Major issues: Minor issues: 1. 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. 2. 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: 1. MUA is used in section 1 but expanded only in section 5. 2. Some typos in section 5. “ syntatically – syntactically” “prioritiy – priority” “comminicate – communicate” “contraints –constraints” 3. In section 10 for X.3.TBD3 “Description: The message mas accepted” I assume you meant “was” 4. In section D.2 first paragraph some typos “focusses –focuses” “comparision – comparison”