Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-yao-ima-smtpext-02.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:07:09 +0100

Hi,
I have a couple of comments on draft-yao-ima-smtpext-02.txt. (Please 
kindly point me to the archive if this was already discussed)

1) I think the document needs to describe its interaction with the DSN 
SMTP extension, for example, what should be put into ORCPT parameter on 
forwarding to a single recipient alias, when the next hop supports both 
the IEmail and the DSN SMTP extensions. I.e. should it be the downgraded 
address or the I18N address?

2). The WG should discuss if changes to Delivery Status Notification 
format are in scope for the WG, in particular extensions to allow for 
I18N addresses. This ties to John's comment about bounces containing 
addresses which are not meaningful for the sender.

3). (Ignoring for the moment the discussion about whether ATOMIC should 
be removed from the spec or not) Minor comment about the ATOMIC 
parameter name. I think "ATOMIC" as a parameter name is misleading, as 
it brings associations with [database] transaction atomicity, maybe 
something like "AUTODERIVED" would be better.

Also, there are a couple of places where ATOMIC is misspelled as ATMOIC.

Regards,
Alexey

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima