Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
draft-ietf-eai-dsn-06

[Ballot comment]
I think the ABNF could be improved and be made easier to verify. I know there are a lot of baggage in the ABNF usage in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822. However, I think the following improvement could be done:

- Put in the equivalent of import clause for different rules. What I mean is that for a rule defined in another document, like "atext"

xtext =

That way a reader know from where it is comming. That is especially important when it comes to extension clauses, i.e. =/ constructions. It will also not show up as undefined in parsing. Thus allowing one to easier verify the real undefines from the ones that are imported from other documents.

[Ballot comment]
ABNF compiles. But only after changing indents in Section 4 to be the same as those in Section 3 (two vs. three spaces). No time to check whether this is a real problem or something that Bill's parser just does...

IANA Last Call comments:

IESG Note: Expert Review Required

Action 1 (Section 6.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Delivery Status Notification (DSN) Types"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dsn-types
sub-registry "Address Types"

address-type Description Reference
----------------- ----------- ---------
UTF-8 UTF-8 mail address [RFC-eai-dsn-06]


Action 2 (Section 6.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in "Delivery Status Notification (DSN) Types" registry
located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dsn-types
sub-registry "Diagnostic Types"

OLD:
diagnostic-type Description Reference
-------------------- ----------- ---------
smtp Internet Mail [RFC3461]

NEW:
diagnostic-type Description Reference
-------------------- ----------- ---------
smtp Internet Mail [RFC3461],[RFC-eai-dsn-06]


Action 3 (Sections 6.3, 6.4, 6.5):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Message Media TypesMessage Media Types"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/

[IESG Note: Expert Review Required]

message
global-headers [RFC-eai-dsn-06]
global-delivery-status [RFC-eai-dsn-06]
global-disposition-notification [RFC-eai-dsn-06]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

Document writeup for draft-ietf-eai-dsn-05, destined for Experimental status

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Harald Alvestrand. Yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes. No.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

Solid.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No. (Concerns with -smtp / -utf8headers also touch this document)

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes. The only unstable normative references are to -smtp and
-utf8headers.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes.
MIME type review was asked for on January 21, 2008.
One comment, positive, has been recieved.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
This document specifies a format for handling delivery
status notifications when those notifications concern
messages that are extended according to the EAI UTF8SMTP
extension.

Working Group Summary
The WG came to consensus on this document.

Document Quality
The document has been reviewed in the WG.


(end)