> This draft specifies a SMTP extension. The IANA Considerations does not > mention registration in the the SMTP Service Extensions registry. It certainly does, in the first paragraph: This specification requests IANA to add the PRIORITY SMTP extension to the "SMTP Service Extensions" registry (in http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters). > There > should also be an indication about the extension being valid for the submit > port. Section 3: 7. The PRIORITY extension is valid for the submission service [RFC6409] and LTMP [RFC2033]. (Murray has already commented on the misspelling of "LMTP" here.) > This draft also defines the MT-Priority header field. It is quite unusual > for a SMTP extension specification to define a mail header field. If I had > an reservations about this draft, it would be on architectural grounds. The > draft tries really hard to transfer priority information over the Internet > and in a foreign environment. This is my major concern about this protocol as well, as I note in the PROTO writeup (which, unfortunately, can't be seen publicly because of a limitation in the datatracker; perhaps I should post it here). I'm interested in hearing whether others share this concern, and what the community consensus is about it. Barry, document shepherd _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf