I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-crocker-email-arch-11.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Mar 24, 2009
IESG Telechat date: Mar 25, 2009
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
The draft has 0 major issues, 5 minor issues, and 10 Nits/Editorial
comments.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues:
1) Throughout the draft, the text refers to RFC2822.X and
RFC2821.Y constructs (e.g., RFC2822.From, etc.) Now, these
drafts -- rfc282{1,2} -- have been obsoleted by newer versions.
So a general question is, should the draft refer to RFC5322.X
and RFC5321.Y instead? I just bring this up for consistency's
sake. If the ADs and other reviewers are okay with using
RFC282{1,2}, then please disregard this comment.
2) In various figures (Figs. 1 and 2, for instance), certain
lines are drawn using "===" while others are drawn using
"...". Is there a difference of semantics between these
representations? There is no legend to guide the reader
by in these figures.
3) S3.3, towards the end of first paragraph: do you think it
is worth mentioning here that people should not derive any
specific connotation on enterprise organization by counting
the number of dots in the FQDN. I have seen many academic
papers do this. Essentially, the number of dots does not
matter in a DNS name.
4) Table 1: Is the MIME header set by an Author or a MUA?
Most MUAs automatically set the MIME header type depending
on the configuration of the MUA; in other words, most
commercial MUAs are configured to utter the right MIME type
when they encounter a certain filename. I have not seen email
authors physically set a MIME type unless they are attaching
a file for which no predefined MIME type exists.
Same comment for RcptTo and ORCPT: Do Authors set this or
does the MTA or MDA?
5) S4.3.2, page 31: "The primary routing mechanism for Internet
Mail is the DNS MX record..." My comment is: is the DNS MX
record a service lookup mechanism or a routing mechanism? I
believe it is the former (i.e., a service lookup mechanism)
and not the latter.
Nits/editorial comments:
1) In S2.2.1, there is the token "<<initial def>>" in the last
paragraph of the section. It seems superfluous at best, or a
place holder of some sort.
2) S 2.1.3, last sentence:
s/2.2.3. ./2.2.3.
3) S2.2, second half of the second paragraph appears to somehow
magically become centered, leading to jagged endings on both the
left and right margins.
4) S2.2.2, second paragraph, first line: no need to expand MHS, it has
been expanded elsewhere before this paragraph.
5) S3.1, second paragraph: s/address <addr-spec>/address, <addr-spec>
6) S3.1, first paragraph, the last two sentences: "Formal
Internet ... [RFC2821].". My question is, if source routing has
been deprecated, why mention it at all?
7) S3.1, third paragraph: s/functions. [RFC2141]/functions [RFC2142]./
8) S3.1, page 17, first paragraph on that page: this paragraph
does not read well. It contains a mish-mash of a run-on
sentence and gratuitous capitalization in the first sentence.
May be wise to reword it.
9) S3.4.1, last paragraph: s/an ID can/a Message-ID can/
10) S4.2.1, towards the end of page 28, there are a couple of
occurrences of "*****". I think these are holdovers from
previous edits.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
