[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt
tony> http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt
Here are my comments:
1. Replace 'A record' with 'address record':
-record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an A record.
+record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an address record.
2. Spelling errors:
-Which option is picked is an adminstrative decision and is not further
+Which option is picked is an administrative decision and is not further
- Example #8 Message Delayed and a DotStuffed Header:
+ Example #8 Message Delayed and a Dot-Stuffed Header:
- If TLS is not suported, then a response code of "/unsupported"
+ If TLS is not supported, then a response code of "/unsupported"
-reponse code of "/unavailable" SHOULD be used. If a TLS session is
+response code of "/unavailable" SHOULD be used. If a TLS session is
3. The firewall examples showing relaying to another host and then that
host's responses seem to show the wrong Remote-MTA hostname but I could
be wrong. Somebody should double chek my work:
@@ -519,7 +519,7 @@
S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
S: Action: relayed
S: Status: 2.1.9
- S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com
+ S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com
S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500
S:
S: --%%%%
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@
S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
S: Action: relayed
S: Status: 2.1.9
- S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com
+ S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com
S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500
S:
4. The MTQP option registration for STARTTLS is improperly formatted:
One MTQP option is defined in this document:
- option identifier: STARTTLS option parameters: none added commands:
- STARTTLS standard commands affected: none specification reference:
- RFC TBD discussion: see RFC TBD
+ option identifier: STARTTLS
+ option parameters: none
+ added commands: STARTTLS
+ standard commands affected: none
+ specification reference: RFC TBD
+ discussion: see RFC TBD