Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ediint-as1-13.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:24:56 -0700 (PDT)

I've just completed my review of -13. The major issues of -11 have all been
resolved. All that remains are a few editorial nits:

(1) This document correctly defines its requirements notation by referring
    to RFC 2119. However, this belongs in a section by itself; it should
    not be part of the abstract. (The RFC Editor has recently become much
    pickier about the contents of abstracts.)

(2) There's still a reference to content-encoding in the last item of section
    5.2.1. This needs to be removed.

(3) There's still no RFC 2298 registration form in an appendix describing
    the new disposition notification options defined in this document. I
    suggest something like:

A.1 IANA registration of the signed-receipt-protocol disposition notification
option

       Parameter-name: signed-receipt-protocol
       Syntax: See section 5.2 of this document
       Specification: See section 5.2 of this document

A.2 IANA registration of the signed-receipt-micalg disposition notification
option

      Parameter-name: signed-receipt-micalg
       Syntax: See section 5.2 of this document
       Specification: See section 5.2 of this document

A.3 IANA registration of the Received-content-MIC MDN extension field name

      Extension field name: Received-content-MIC
      Syntax: See section 5.3.1 of this document
      Specificaion: See section 5.3.1 of this document

(4) I don't insist on it, but a reference to RFC 3156 added to all the places
    where RFC 2015 is referenced would be nice.

That's it. I'll request a last call immediately after the next revision
appears that addresses these points.

				Ned