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