Last Call Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 04)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)|
|Draft last updated||2012-06-08|
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Martin Thomson
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Shawn Emery
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-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02 Reviewer: Martin Thomson Review Date: 2012-06-08 IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-02 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC, with one question. Major issues: None Minor issues: I'm not sure that I agree with the SHOULD strength requirement on MSAs or MTAs to strip mt-priority headers. There's a marked difference between failure to meet local preconditions for compliance and whatever conditions some other MTA might place on mt-priority observance. GIven that each hop is expected to make their own determination about priority anyway, what benefit is there in removing information that might inform that choice? Nits/editorial comments: Section 7, check grammar: "within a close environment) ." Section 7.1: I don't like statements like "has pros and cons" without any guidance. The pros and cons are probably easy to describe (they seem intuitively obvious), so they are either important enough to describe or not worth mentioning at all. Either is better than the tease.