Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments-04.txt Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Wed., Feb 07, 2007 IESG Telechat date: 08 Feb 2007 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: This draft discusses some interesting issues for deployment of mobile email when using the TCP transport. More feedback is below, with substantive comments first followed by nits. Substantive comments: 1) In S4, I find it rather odd that the first paragraph takes pains to mandate the use of TCP just to have the second para- graph negate that by saying that it is okay to use HTTP for webmail instead of opening a direct TCP connection. I am unsure what is required: is TCP a MUST, or alternative transports like HTTP are okay? 2) In S4.2, would it help to have a MUST strength for turning off TCP keepalives? More so since it is also harmful for dormancy (as discussed in S5.) 3) In S6, please consider providing a reference for supporting the sentence "There is a body of best practices based on long experience in this area." It may help the reader if he/she wants to explore this area in some more detail. 4) In S8, please consider putting a reference for STARTTLS extensions (it is described in RFC3207.) Nits: 1) Just a suggestion: please consider expanding acronyms on first use. 2) In S3, may be a good idea to provide a reference for IMAP and Message Submission in the first sentence of the opening paragraph. 3) S4, second paragraph: s/marjup/markup