IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 15 November 2011 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 BE93A11E80F4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RECV_IP_061228=0.895, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666]
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 uCoCODtX-sUl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367FF11E80EB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.229] (61-230-53-171.dynamic.hinet.net [61.230.53.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAFLpAJG005136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:20 -0800
Message-ID: <4EC2DEC9.4070905@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:51:05 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111151903240.41620@joyce.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151108140.30178@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151108140.30178@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:51:25 -0000

Folks,


On 11/15/2011 7:12 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> I'm not sure what SM's draft is for, since RFC 3974 is obsoleted by RFC 5321
> (even though the RFC index fails to say so).


I would like to see some very explicit discussion and reasonably clear consensus 
that answers this question.

By explicit, I mean specification of what details need to be covered that are 
not covered by 5321 (and to help get the consensus, what details in the new 
draft are redundant with which details in 5321.)

It seems to me something close to a absolute rule that the document MUST NOT 
replicate specification already in a standards track document, but rather must 
simply cite it.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email