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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.