Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt> (The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages) to Draft Standard

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:11:31 +0300

26.09.2011 17:05, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
> - 'The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System
>     Administrative Messages'
>    <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01.txt>  as a Draft Standard

The IESG has already approved draft-housley-two-maturity-levels, so 
Draft Standard isn't now available as a target maturity level.  How is 
IESG going to handle this?

Now with respect to document's contents.  The Abstract says:

>     The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
>     media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic
>     mail reports of any kind.  Although this memo defines only the use of
>     the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status
>     reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type
>     is used for all kinds of reports.

I propose prepending the phrase "This document defines" and 
corresponding change in the 2nd sentence: "Although this document 
specifies...".  This is how Abstracts are usually written in the current 
RFCs.

In Section 1:

>    [OLD-REPORT] and its antecedent declared the multipart/report media
>    type for use within the [MIME] construct to create a container for
>    mail system administrative reports of various kinds.

I propose changing to:

>    RFC 3462 [OLD-REPORT] and its antecedent specified the multipart/report
>    media type for use within the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions 
> (MIME)
>    [MIME] construct to create the container for mail system administrative
>    reports of various kind.  It imposed limitations on multipart/report
>    being the outermost part of MIME message.

Correspondingly, the second paragraph is to be changed to:

> Practical experience has shown that such restriction, while 
> well-intentioned,
>   {current text}

In Section 5, it might be useful to provide a list of currently defined 
media types that may be used in multipart/report.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:04:36 +0300

> IESG going to handle this?

Now, RFC 6410 is what this document has been published as, so the 
changes are indeed in the force.  So should we rather advance the 
document to Full Standard or recycle at Proposed?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev