[apps-discuss] Citations for terms from RFC 5598 (Internet Mail Architecture)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 25 April 2012 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7578621F8712 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WWTeftFdW1nD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AE621F86A0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so24507qcs.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=ACfvAesSkQHO8IrNqemubtLVeIjFDb2R4EsRZ0uusC0=; b=Oy1lH2Q76APB8ZjtSgkifafo/OELwRvVX/0va014W6n9sRWds5hh7kKr8WIPpCf4Rx wCvJb9pmEzC7qVsVmoatLC986NPo7/oorG41z7+SYv7XQ7L6FLhdP48V2GKdqaXQpFn+ +Pd9Mxy/bowyngmZS6BtV1ovTgeWnKKvfAJiVE6WfZEHuURxFEkBaryK4qT4gZZxqDLH pVQwz27ysydrKA4/wzuMMPuFrwEb+b9ze3fY0w3NrldG9iHI1Di8+xEDvC0AaShKk5qe Nkmq0u+OlTsuSy//kOIZFvy7k5uaI/2ZcAsxfqBZRpY2DD76n3Vysrbtif+eAJ6atgH/ DVyw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.184.70 with SMTP id cj6mr1801234qab.77.1335357680929; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.220.19 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:41:20 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: oXiN9bAHxkAn82ynhtKk3B9AZwc
Message-ID: <CALaySJLYcDMFierSESTLi4pKG4rhkhr11PwQ91u1_7OjzVPqkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Citations for terms from RFC 5598 (Internet Mail Architecture)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:41:28 -0000

RFC 5598, "Internet Mail Architecture", is a handy document -- an
Informational doc that's on the approved-downref list, and which
contains explanations for many terms that we use in talking about
email infrastructure, along with a clear picture of how the pieces all
fit together.

It frequently comes up in document reviews, both from
directorates/review teams and from the IESG, that people wish we'd
expanded the terms taken from RFC 5598 on first use.  We freely use
terms such as "MTA", "MSA", "MUA", "ADMD", and so on, and readers
aren't always sure whether *that* term comes from 5598 or not.
Further, someone with a basic idea of how things work might not have
to look to 5598 to understand "Message Submission Agent" or
"Administrative Management Domain", but is likely not to get the
abbreviations without heading to the reference.

I think it's reasonable for us to establish a convention for citing
from RFC 5598 that goes something like this:

1. Put a reference in the terminology section that says that a number
of terms in this document come from RFC 5598.  Something like this
works:

   1.1 Terminology

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

      A number of terms used in this document are explained in "Internet Mail
      Architecture" [RFC5598], and an understanding of the concepts in RFC 5598
      is important for readers of this document.

2. On first use of any particular term, spell it out, abbreviate it,
and cite it.  Do this for *every* term we get out of 5598.  So on
first use of MTA we say, "when a Message Transfer Agent (MTA)
[RFC5598] receives a connection...".  If we also use "MSA", we *also*
say, on first use, "when connecting to a Message Submission Agent
(MSA) [RFC5598], it is important to...".  And then, "if the recipient
is in the same Administrative Management Domain (ADMD) [RFC5598],
then...".  And so on, for all the terms.

This may mean that we have a lot of citations to 5598, one for each
term we use out of there, but I think it will make it easier for
people to read and understand the email-related documents.

Comments?

Barry