Re: [apps-discuss] The SMTP 521 reply code, RFC 1846, and nullMX

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F8D1A0115 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:09:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hbk_dHfASO_t for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA0A1A00E4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PJ4HYNSVB4009EFN@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:04:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1425312265; bh=h6fJ2oJlexKNlXbC8CxgPzrsrex70OzkCM2zqk9FBJo=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=BEDpP80zoOeTUswyqQpauGao/QQ3VTR64CrjXOqAm1evpWSvFwvbdEQqyD1ICq9z0 my4mUaHzlq/H5WKF1SX2AQftUk5m7JnsnKUCNcZOPrWNG8RCeg3GhdPlnK1JJybf0M qKAqR8kD7e5Wso/Luqwsj8dFKNK/9qPWUNZtEGh0=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="utf-8"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PJ4GV1WOAO0000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01PJ4HYMFQIQ0000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:00:22 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 02 Mar 2015 09:30:25 -0500" <9BAFB425A5757D4381D157FB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <9BAFB425A5757D4381D157FB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/NsmjWaEMd62LtFIs9taagiQZYvI>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The SMTP 521 reply code, RFC 1846, and nullMX
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:09:27 -0000

I took a quick look at draft-klensin-smtp-521code-02 and I don't see
anything wrong with it. I suggest moving it forward through
whatever means are most expeditious.

My only two minor comments on the text as it stands are first,
that I believe the RFC editor has a thing about references to
other documents in the abstract, so that may be an issue with
how it's presently worded.

Second, I'm not quite comfortable with the phrase "the preferred message".
Perhaps "a possible messsage" or "an acceptable message"?

				Ned

> Hi.

> There was a lot of activity around this in the middle of last
> year, largely because of the nullMX draft
> (draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx).  According to the tracker, nullMX
> has been sitting in the RFC Editor queue since mid-September, in
> part because it contains a normative reference to
> draft-klensin-smtp-521code.  I think the assumption was that a
> quick Last Call was going to be done on the latter I-D, possibly
> through appsawg, but nothing has ever happened.

> According to the Secretariat's automatic system,
> draft-klensin-smtp-521code-02.txt expires next week.

> I'm happy to update and repost it if there is a plan to move it
> forward.  Or I can let it expire, thereby either killing the
> nullMX draft or requiring that it be reissued with a different
> strategy and presumably a new Last Call.

> Please advise.

>     john


> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Monday, March 02, 2015 04:42 -0800
> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
> To: "John C. Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
> Subject: Expiration impending:
> <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-02.txt>

> The following draft will expire soon:

> Name:     draft-klensin-smtp-521code
> Title:    SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes
> State:    I-D Exists
> Expires:  2015-03-11 (in 1 week, 1 day)


> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------




> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss