Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements Document

[Phil Miller <millenix@zemos.net>]

eric@infobro.com wrote:
> Kee, Yakov and List participants:
>
> The latest draft of the Requirements may be accessed at:
>
> <http://www.infobro.com/anon-FTP/infoSource/IRTF/ASRG/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx-05.txt>
TOC: 'Rationale*:*' -> 'Rationale' or just remove Rationale from TOC in 
post-processing

1.3.11,12: These should be removed, since they are specific to a certain 
form of solution.

1.3.21: For clarity, perhaps you could say "A [MTA] is an *entity* 
within the [MTS] that participates ... or other MTA*s*.

1.3.22: This diagram is not inclusive of the degenerate case of a 
message sent between 2 users on the same end-point MTA. For example, I 
have certainly received spam from other Yahoo users in my Yahoo email 
account.

1.3.24: Why not collapse this to just MSA, and consider a local store 
maintained by the MUA as part of the MUA. Thus, MSA would refer only to 
POP3/IMAP/etc. servers. We could stand to deprecate the term 'Message 
Store' and become consistent in the process

1.3.26: How about "An MTA that is configured to accept and relay 
messages on behalf users that are not explicitly authorized to use it in 
this manner."

1.3.27,28: Perhaps irrelevant to the current discussion? This is not 
meant to be a general glossary of consent-based electronic messaging, 
but we could use a superset of this list for such a thing.

1.3.32: Considering the way the existing MTS works, this should be 
reworded to not exclude interaction with MUAs, but to emphasize the 
primary role as a non-endpoint (Sender/Receiver) MTA. Perhaps just 
stating "An MTA that is neither the Sender nor Receiver in a particular 
messaging transmission sequence, but participates in it."

1.3.33: "A Relay MTA which enforces a specified policy to conditionally 
relay messages as part of a messaging transmission sequence."

1.3.36,37: Unncessary as relevant definitions. Perhaps worth mention as 
current Non Consent Based Communication.

1.4: Much of this 1st paragraph should be incorporated into 1.3.22, as 
it is continuing the definition of the MTS. The last sentence should 
probably read "The MTS uses various transport, envelope, and message 
technologies that are standardized and well known."
Bullet a: "Which component of the MTS is the platform for the proposed 
solution,"
b: "Whether the proposed solution makes no changes to existing protocols 
[i.e. policy enforced with existing protocol], is an extension of 
existing protocols, or is an entirely new protocol,"
c: "Whether the proposed solution uses existing technologies, or depends 
on new technologies."

2.3.1: "For successful adoption by the user community*,* proposals must 
provide support for typical and atypical messaging situations." The next 
phrase, "involving 2 or more parties" is superfluous. The final sentence 
is obtuse.

Please keep us up to date on draft revisions. Although I haven't the 
time to generate these documents, I can definitely comment on them.

Phil Miller


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg