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

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@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 91ED611E8081 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, 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 irtxTzt-Y1BP for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07DC11E8073 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so4784705wwe.13 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yK1rjr/uVi7Nuw5FZcW2r/XjGJDohS/yR+1BH+xvLmw=; b=nJw9fiXgZZG1jok8OQ/KeCucAWVbPKgrQyal6d9f/d8hlXR4jcaT7FINW6YjtcbXIZ nJnhq9Rx2arHTlHwyQJG6FKYA4yJ68+KOc9RbO78ZN9sfVbFZ6ya62BUD5GRzJZIB9k9 jnxOl/pZTraVFQ9x/AIPXoJ62xMlRG/UE80FE=
Received: by 10.216.230.90 with SMTP id i68mr568474weq.73.1321384831092; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.184.147 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:19:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151108140.30178@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:19:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHhFybr3OyhE310J8-iYGsY4h4Y=QaLisaFd761L64_w4_CcJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.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 19:20:32 -0000

On 15 November 2011 12:12, Tony Finch wrote:

> RFC 3974 is obsoleted by RFC 5321 (even though the RFC index fails
> to say so).

The first page of RFC 5321 doesn't confirm that theory, there is no
"obsoletes 3974".  Maybe 5321bis could state this explicitly.

It would be nice to have both, an official STD 10 fresher than 821,
and an informational companion obsoleting 3974 with the dual stack
example.

-Frank

"In any case, the SMTP adds its own identifier to the reverse-path"