Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt> (Registration of Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header fields for use in Internet Mail) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'm fine with your judgment of what to incorporate or not.  Mykyta

17.09.2011 17:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Thank you for the review. My answers are below.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

So some small comments:

1) A nit in Change controller field for all the header fields: you should either change it to IESG (iesg@xxxxxxxx) or IETF with subsequent address ietf@xxxxxxxx.

I don't think this is a big deal either way, but I've changed to IESG.

2) Also, it might be useful to point out in the sub-sections of Section 3 which ABNF productions do the header fields match.

3) Section 4:

  Terms not defined here are taken from [RFC5322] and [RFC2156].

You probably missed RFC 5234 (with e. g. <DQUOTE>) here.

Right.

Some ABNF nits:

4)

     military-string = 1*69( ps-char )

No harm to change it to "1*69ps-char"

No, but the original is a bit more readable.

5)

     std-precedence = "deferred" / "routine" / "priority" /
                      "immediate" / "flash" / "override"
     std-message-type = "exercise" / "operation" / "project" /  "drill"

Is there an ability to extend the allowed range of parameters here?

No. Numeric values are for extensibility.

6)

     nonneg-integer = "0" / (NZ-DIGIT *DIGIT)

Should this be

     nonneg-integer = "0" / ( [ "+" ] NZ-DIGIT *DIGIT)

as non-negative integer implies that it may be prepended by "+" (as well as zero - I don't know exactly).

I would rather leave this as is, there is no need for "+" and some people already implemented the currect ABNF.

7)

     military-string-sequence = military-string
                         [ [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string-sequence ]

I think

     military-string-sequence = military-string
                         [ [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string ]

is just the same but improves readability (unless you make this intentionally, but I see no reason).

The original definition is recursive. What you've suggested is incorrect, because it only allowes 2 values (with optional FWS, etc. in between).

So the correct form would be:

military-string-sequence = military-string
                        *( [FWS] ";" [FWS] military-string )

8)

     Subject-Indicator-Codes = "MMHS-Subject-Indicator-Codes:"
                               [FWS] [sic-sequence] [FWS] CRLF

Can the header field appear to be:

     MMHS-Subject-Indicator-Codes:

as you allow.  Maybe removing [] around sic-sequence?

Yes, good point. Another person also pointed this out.

9) I'd like you hereby disallowed further registration of header fields beginning with "MMHS", likewise RFC 5504 "Downgraded" prefix (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5504#page-18).

I think other people already commented on this. So no change.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

14.09.2011 22:53, The IESG wrote:

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Registration of Military Message Handling System (MMHS) header fields
    for use in Internet Mail'
<draft-melnikov-mmhs-header-fields-04.txt>  as an Informational RFC




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]