I am the assigned ART directorate reviewer for this document. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the ART area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document describes an applicability statement for electronic mail. It is well written and easy to read.

I have one question to the authors (it can also be treated as an issue). Sections 2.1, 2,2, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, and 4.3 do not contain any RFC2119 recommendations for how to deal with the situations they describe. Is it intentional? It seems to me that some RFC 2119 language should be used there (e.g. instead of "discouraged", "should", etc.).

Nit (Section 2.2): I think that an 8-line sentence is a little bit too long. Perhaps splitting it would improve readability (not that it is unparsable, but still).