IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 01 March 2012 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA40A21E8217 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8VyBqXWyS69 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB3821E8279 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q21LaxrB024828; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:37:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1330637824; i=@resistor.net; bh=k2bCk2GxLAbS9w8N+Ji4SJ7mlgyoWRaaOIsGtUvcAlw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NuoW4ueRv1r7P4sbk6gKNAGziyNq3gfaMXKYyglNcnfKxEjO40pWNEZ9b34/3VX5s Mtndl/pRfXHQaTwuAPFhazKtNqOLAmcsctgdsI+O34DGcrK4reF3O/jSBQ0HlqwMPG GSlCYa0K3ZWrxThPKkz+hIz0I9TXbP173MouEGOU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1330637824; i=@resistor.net; bh=k2bCk2GxLAbS9w8N+Ji4SJ7mlgyoWRaaOIsGtUvcAlw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=FmPWuj1NkraOTkEwVF9BHqUppPkj3sy/7d3+EZSeRkTH+4Z7TEaokBaBHe9JYbVYl Dts+wsH/IUD4VfVWUnTFBe5ii2kj7q5f6Q6lQwPxwMMMQwiZdFy/0ImjgzBrwFKFg4 Tn7S6xf36WB+StQeVALPGA/MbrIykSwWd3GVqbcU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120301120015.0940b2c0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:36:09 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <20120301004219.15266.76505.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120301004219.15266.76505.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:37:07 -0000

At 16:42 29-02-2012, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer
>    Priorities'
>   <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-28. Exceptionally, comments may be

This draft specifies a SMTP extension.  The IANA Considerations does 
not mention registration in the the SMTP Service Extensions 
registry.  There should also be an indication about the extension 
being valid for the submit port.  The issue of referencing STANAG 
4406 was resolved by the IESG last year (see RFC 6477).

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.  Although the draft is well-written and can be 
implemented, I have doubts about whether it will achieve its 
objective.  I unfortunately cannot support the publication of this 
draft as a Proposed Standard.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email