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”