Last Call Review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-
review-leiba-5322upd-from-group-genart-lc-even-2012-10-26-00

Request Review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-11-08
Requested 2012-10-11
Authors Barry Leiba
Draft last updated 2012-10-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Roni Even
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Roni Even
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Warren Kumari
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-leiba-5322upd-from-group-genart-lc-even-2012-10-26
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2012-10-26

Review
review-leiba-5322upd-from-group-genart-lc-even-2012-10-26

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

 

Document: 

draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–10–17

IETF LC End Date: 2012–11–6

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as

 a standard track 

RFC

.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group construct is.  Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information.

Section 2.1 says “If the sender field uses group syntax, the group MUST NOT contains more than one mailbox.”  Why use a group name for a single mailbox?

 

Nits/editorial comments: