wfm thanks for engaging adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 24 August 2011 01:10 > To: Adrian Farrel; The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with > COMMENT) > > Hi Adrian, > > Thanks for the review. > > At 15:16 23-08-2011, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >COMMENT: > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here > >are some piddle-nits you might look at in the interest of making the > >draft so highly polished that you can see your ^H^H^H face in it. > > Polished drafts rarely make it to Full Standard. :-) > > >--- > > > >idnits says... > > -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4409, but the > > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. > > RFC 4409 obsoletes RFC 2476. That RFC does not mention that fact in > the Abstract. The "should" might have been appropriate if the draft > was not intended to be published as a Full Standard. > > >--- > > > >I think you are not supposed to include citations in the Abstract. > >On the other hand, it might be nice to include the reference to > >[SMTP-MTA] in the first paragraph of Section 1. > > Yes. That citation can be dropped from the Abstract. I'll leave it > to the editors to see whether they want to have the reference in the > first paragraph of Section 1. > > >--- > > > >Maybe the Abstract should mention what type of messages (i.e. mail) the > >document handles? > > I'll default to no change as the barrier for a change is higher than > the usual IETF draft. For what it is worth, the title of the > specification is "Message Submission for Mail". > > >--- > > > >Section 2.2 does not need to include > > In examples, "C:" is used to indicate lines sent by the client, and > > "S:" indicates those sent by the server. Line breaks within a > > command example are for editorial purposes only. > > Good catch. > > >--- > > > >Section 3 > > > >In the last paragraph of the section there are some lower-case "must". > >Please be sure that you don't mean upper case. > > The lower-case "must" is appropriate as the last paragraph of Section > 3 does not specify a requirement. > > >Similarly section 8 paragraph 3 > > I gather that you may be referring to Section 8 paragraph 2. The > lower-case "must" is intentional. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
