James P. Salsman (bovik@best.com)
Wed, 9 May 2001 20:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
I read through draft-ietf-vpim-vpimv2r2-02.txt without finding any
real serious issues or problems, but I did want to ask about these
four minor points to maybe help clarify the document:
In section 4.2.8 [Page 14], the Receive Rules for the Reply-To
header contains this sentence: "If only one address of the
originator is supported in the message store or in the next-hop
protocol from a multi-protocol gateway, the address in the 'From:'
field MUST be used and the 'Reply-To' field MAY be silently
discarded." What does that mean? I can't figure it out. I don't
understand either of the disjoint anticedent conditions. Also, it
seems strange to discard the Reply-To field without some kind of a
warning, or some attempt to send to it in addition to the "From"
field, which seems allowed but not manditory, right?
In section 4.2.10, and probably other places, there is a reference
to [V-MSG] (RFC 2423), even though it seems like that references
was either superceded or maybe just duplicated in Appendix E,
section 18.2 [Page 55]. If RFC 2423 is being superceded here, it
would be best to point to the appendix instead, but if it is just
simply duplicated, then I guess it might be better to reference both,
to save the reader a little time.
In section 4.3.2 [Page 18], in the next-to-last sentence of the
first paragraph, the phrase "audio contents MUST always be of type
inline.", should probably instead end "of disposition inline."
In the first row of the table in Appendix C [section 16, Page 52],
shouldn't the nondelivery code for a busy line be 4.3.2 instead of
4.4.0? RFC 1893 seems to indicate 4.3.2 would apply ("Examples of
such conditions include ... excessive load....")
I hope this gets lots of interoperable implementations soon. Thanks
to Gred and Glenn for the great work.
Cheers,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 10 2001 - 06:26:34 IDT