Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 feedback

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:59:59 +0200

Hello,

Here are some comments on 2369bis draft.

Major/non-editorial issues:

In Abstract and Introduction, you only mention those List- header
fields that were specified in original RFC 2369 but not the introduced
'List-Sequence'.

While you define 8 header fields, you provide ABNF for only one of
them.  Whereas the syntax is clear from Section 2, at least one header
field ('List-Post') may contain a value different from the URI (I mean
"NO"), so there is a need to define formal syntax here.  I think it's
a rather simple thing to do:

List-Help = "List-Help:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List  [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Subscribe = "List-Subscribe:" Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Unsubscribe = "List-Unsubscribe:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Post = "List-Post:" [ CFWS ] ( Uri-List / "NO" ) [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Owner = "List-Owner:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
List-Archive = "List-Archive:" [ CFWS ] Uri-List [ CFWS ] CRLF
Uri-List = "<" URI ">" *("," [ FWS ] "<" URI ">")
            ; whereas <URI> is defined in RFC 3986 and <FWS> and
<CFWS> in RFC 5322
List-Sequence = "List-Sequence:" seq-id
            ; <seq-id> already defined

I tried to follows those recommendation you set in Section 2; and of
course this in no way is meant to be a perfect choice for definition.

You could provide a wider description of 'List-Sequence' and how it is
different from 'Message-ID'.

Section 6: why you don't register the newly introduced 'List-Sequence'
as required by RFC 3864 by only asking IANA to update the existing
registrations?

Editorial issues:

In Abstract and Introduction, please distinguish the scheme name
'mailto', probably s/mailto/'mailto'/.

Section 2:

   By this mechanism, protocols like http may be
   specified while still providing the basic mailto support for those
   clients who do not have access to non-mail protocols.

Did you mean "URI scheme" under "protocol" here?  These are not
synonymous, as there may be different scheme names for one protocol ot
one scheme may use different protocols.  This should be corrected, I
think.

Ibid, para 5:  "mailto" protocol -> "mailto" URI scheme.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:28:17 -0800

Hi Mykyta,
>Here are some comments on 2369bis draft.

Thanks for the feedback.

>fields that were specified in original RFC 2369 but not the introduced

I'll add that to the next revision.

>course this in no way is meant to be a perfect choice for definition.

I understand that a lot of folks will want to see ABNF definitions 
for the header fields specified in RFC 2369.  As I viewed it as a 
significant change, I preferred to be cautious by leaving it 
out.  I'll wait for more feedback on this.

>different from 'Message-ID'.

A Message-ID is not a Sequence Identifier.  seq-id is sometimes used 
to denote the position of a message in an archive or it might be used 
as a (internal) message counter.  A Message-ID cannot be used for that.

>as required by RFC 3864 by only asking IANA to update the existing

That was a last minute change.

>'mailto', probably s/mailto/'mailto'/.

Ok.

>one scheme may use different protocols.  This should be corrected, I

Good catch, it should have been scheme.

>Ibid, para 5:  "mailto" protocol -> "mailto" URI scheme.

Ok.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy