Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:29:22 +0000



    Hi Roni,

    Thank you for your review.

    
    On 13/03/2012 19:25, Roni Even wrote:
    
      
        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
      
    
    Ah, good catch. The text should be another bullet point in the list.

    
        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.
      
    
    Basically there are existing header fields with similar semantics
    already in use, so people want to use them as the last resort.

    There was a bit of a debate about specific header fields during the
    IETF LC, so this text will hopefully be improved after the debate.

    
        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.
      
    
    This is described by the following text in Section 3:

    
          One optional parameter ("MT-PRIORITY") is added to the

          MAIL FROM command. The value associated with this parameter is

          a decimal integer number from -9 to 9 (inclusive)

          indicating the priority of the email message.  The syntax of

    
    In SMTP parameter values are separated with "=" from the
    corresponding parameter names.

      
        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”
      
    
    All of these fixed in my copy, thanks!

    
    Best Regards,

    Alexey