Subject: [Gen-art] [Regn-Art Review: draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-04.txt

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:02:08 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 17-March-2008
IETF LC End Date: 26-March-2008?
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary:  This document is presumably ready for publication as a BCP

Comments:
	I say "presumably" because there are two oddities that strike me 
reading this document.
	Firstly, the defining table is labeled "incomplete."  I presume IANA is 
comfortable that they can generate the needed entries?
	Secondly, there is something odd in the definition.
The text says that the codes is a three part numeric value.  (Actually, 
it says "a numeric code consisting of three components" which I take to 
mean a three part code, each of which is numeric.)  However, all of the 
registration entries themselves start with X. for the code.  Last I 
checked, X was not numeric.  At a guess, the idea is to register the 
subcodes for all three of the "class" values defined in RFC 3463. 
Presumably, it is believed that this compression in representation will 
be obvious to the mail implementors who need to read this document, and 
to the IANA which needs to maintain it. (It confused me, which is why I 
am raising it.)   Possibly, the intent is for IANA to expand those 
entries into the class 2, etc individual entries?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art