My apologies for getting this in late. I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft appears to be ready for publication with some nits.. This draft polishes and advances to Internet Standard level RFC 3798 on Message Disposition Notifications. *Security Considerations:* The Security Considerations seem good except for one minor point: in my opinion the option to return all or a portion of the original message significantly increases the possible risk of use MDNs as a traffic multiplier. I believe this should be mentioned in Section 6.4. *Miscellaneous:* The style of this draft is to say that you MUST do this and MUST NOT do that without indicating what action should be taken if this is violated. This is like saying a protocol field "MUST be zero" without adding the usual "and is ignored on receipt". For example, in Section 3 it says that a message disposition notification MUST NOT itself request an MDN. I believe it should go on and add the few words to say: "If one does, this is ignored." (unless that's wrong...) I'm not saying this must always be done but there may be 1 or 2 other cases like this in the draft where such wording should be added. *Wording:* In Section 3, the wording of the last sentence of point d seems just a bit obscure. It says However, in the case of encrypted messages requesting MDNs, encrypted message text MUST be returned, if it is returned at all, only in its original encrypted form. I think it would be a just bit clearer as However, in the case of encrypted messages requesting MDNs, if the original message or a portion thereof is returned, it MUST be in its original encrypted form. *Trivia:* I do wonder if the references to X.400 mail are necessary. They seem archaic. Does anyone run X.400 email any more? It is just used as an example, along with proprietary mail systems. I think such proprietary systems still exist, but X.400 mail? I'm not so sure. If it is going to be retained, maybe there should be an Informational reference for it. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com