Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Request for reviews of draft-duerst-mailto-bis-07.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:41:03 +0000

I've just sent draft-duerst-mailto-bis-07.txt to IETF LC. I think the 
document is ready, but I would appreciate extra reviews, especially from 
URI experts.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:08:15 +0100

Alexey,

You asked for a review of draft-duerst-mailto-bis-07.txt.  I'm taking a 
few moments to comment, but I don't have time for a full review, as your 
document is in front of it ;-)

Overall my only real question is this (not even a concern at this point):

Apart from Bcc, is this change opaque to legacy implementations?  It 
seems so, but perhaps I'm not thinking right.

Nits?:

In Section 2, there's a lot of non-normative language that should be 
normative, IMHO.  For example:

>   1.  A number of characters that can appear in <addr-spec> have to be
>        percent-encoded.

s/have to/MUST/

Similarly:

>    2. <obs-local-part> and <NO-WS-CTL> as defined in [RFC5322] are not
>        allowed.

s/are not allowed/MUST NOT be used/.

And of course directly below it:

>    3.  Whitespace and comments within <local-part> and <domain> are not
>        allowed.
s/are not allowed/MUST NOT be used/.

Martin wrote:

>
>> Implementations SHOULD NOT produce two "To:" header fields in a
>> message; the "To:" header field may occur at most once in a message
>> ([RFC5322], Section 3.6). Also, creators of 'mailto' URIs SHOULD NOT
>> include other message header fields multiple times if these header
>> fields can only be used once in a message.
>>
>>
> Any reasons why these SHOULD NOTs are not MUST NOTs?
>
> Not being a mail expert, I have no experience on what goes wrong if 
> these restrictions are not met. If you think a MUST is more 
> appropriate, that's fine with me.

IMHO MUST is appropriate.  That table is meant to be normative.  The 
usual rule "be conservative.. be liberal.." also implies this should be 
a MUST, and I can tell you that spam catching software will prefer 
conservative.

Eliot