Message Submission for Mail
RFC 6409

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Pete Resnick) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-23 for -)
No email
send info
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here are some piddle-nits you might look at in the interest of making the draft so highly polished that you can see your ^H^H^H face in it.

---

idnits says...
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4409, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

---

I think you are not supposed to include citations in the Abstract.
On the other hand, it might be nice to include the reference to 
[SMTP-MTA] in the first paragraph of Section 1.

---

Maybe the Abstract should mention what type of messages (i.e. mail) the
document handles?

---

Section 2.2 does not need to include
   In examples, "C:" is used to indicate lines sent by the client, and
   "S:" indicates those sent by the server.  Line breaks within a
   command example are for editorial purposes only.

---

Section 3

In the last paragraph of the section there are some lower-case "must".
Please be sure that you don't mean upper case.

Similarly section 8 paragraph 3

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-19 for -)
No email
send info
Given that start-tls is (as stated) the most common
way to secure the submission channel, perhaps the
mention of IPsec in 3.3 would be better replaced
with a reference to start-tls?

typo in IANA cnosiderations? "The table in Table 1..."
s/table/text/?

(David Harrington) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-24 for -)
No email
send info
This document seems clear and well-written.
thanks.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-23)
No email
send info
WRT to anchor36: Do we expect the RFC editor to ask the IESG before or after the telechat?  I think you could delete it prior to publication.

Appendix B: You could strike 5322 from the list because it's an informative reference.