Section 8.3, item (9): Appears to have an open technical question
that should be resolved.
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32 now contains the following text:
(9) // Following paragraph requires input from Alexey, revised
text, and
// WG signoff on the result. Another subregistry question
arises with the MT-PRIORITY extension. The authors of RFC 6710
(one of whom is obviously quite handy) should review how that
extension is handled, including whether the use of "MT-
PRIORITY" in some places as "PRIORITY" in others is confusing.
At present, it is listed as a Service Extension, in the
Extension Parameters list, and with its own separate registry
in the Mail Parameters registry group [60] [57]. At least that
registry should be shown as a sub-subregistry of the Service
Extensions Registry and/or carefully cross-referenced.
Speaking as one of the editors of RFC 6710, I think the only change
needed is to rename "SMTP PRIORITY extension Priority Assignment
Policy" sub-registry to "SMTP MT-PRIORITY extension Priority
Assignment Policy".
Donald Eastlake wrote:
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32 now contains the following text:
(9) // Following paragraph requires input from Alexey, revised text, and // WG signoff on the result. Another subregistry question arises with the MT-PRIORITY extension. The authors of RFC 6710 (one of whom is obviously quite handy) should review how that extension is handled, including whether the use of "MT- PRIORITY" in some places as "PRIORITY" in others is confusing. At present, it is listed as a Service Extension, in the Extension Parameters list, and with its own separate registry in the Mail Parameters registry group [60] [57]. At least that registry should be shown as a sub-subregistry of the Service Extensions Registry and/or carefully cross-referenced.