Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist (Mailing Lists and Internationalized Email Addresses) to Experimental RFC

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:36 -0700

At 16:44 23-03-10, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
>Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
>
>- 'Mailing Lists and Internationalized Email Addresses '
>    <draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-06.txt> as an Experimental RFC
>
>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

These comments should not be read as a review of the document.

I suggest switch Section 1 and Section 2.  BTW, there is a dot after 
"Intended Status: Experimental"

I suggest reusing the text from the Abstract as the first paragraph 
in Section 2 as it makes the scope mentioned in Section 3 clearer:

     This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
     introduction of internationalized email addresses {RFC5336] and
     makes some specific recommendations on how mailing lists should
     act in various situations.

In Section 2:

   "Some mailing lists alter the message header, while others do not."

Shouldn't that be "message header fields"?

    "(that is, each address either is ASCII or has an ALT-ADDRESS)."

I suggest adding a reference to RFC 5336 for ALT-ADDRESS.

In Section 5, some editorial changes are suggested for the second paragraph:

     List-Id: List Header Mailing List <list-header.example.com>
     List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help> (List Instructions)
     List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
     List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
     List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
     List-Owner: <mailto:[email-masked]> (Contact Person for Help)
     List-Archive: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=index%20list>

    "When a UTF-8 mailto is used in a List-* header field, an
     alt-address, if available, SHOULD immediately follow it."

That would make draft-duerst-mailto-bis, currently at -08, a 
normative reference.

RFC 2369, RFC 2919, RFC 5504 and RFC 5336 should be normative references.

Regards,
-sm