IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 1F95F1F0D96 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 tufhS7V4ZYxZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE2D1F0D94 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:39 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:04:37 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
Thread-Index: AcyjHemJf30dmThPQRaQAVM6mBjDUgAJJtOw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15050@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111114142451.09b74390@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111114142451.09b74390@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf-smtp@imc.org" <ietf-smtp@imc.org>
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
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 03:04:41 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:35 PM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
> 
> The change from RFC 3974 is:
> 
>   - Removal of the Basic DNS Resource Record Definitions for Mail
> Routing section
> 
>   - Removal of the SMTP Sender Algorithm in a Dual-Stack Environment
> section

Why were these removed?  They seemed useful for illustration in RFC3974.

>   - Removal of the Operational Experience and open issues sections.

Replacing this with more current operational experience might be better than removing it outright.

Also, I wonder if the v6ops "Happy Eyeballs" work might be an interesting reference here.

> Please note that the algorithm has already been used in several
> existing implementations.

Excellent.

RFC5321 talked about aspects of RFC3974 that were in conflict with what RFC5321 says.  Have those been resolved in your draft?  (Alas, I can't tell after a cursory read what those might've been.  Maybe it's simply the thing John Levine just pointed out in another message.)

It's worth pointing out the document state change as well (which I support).

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email