Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9422 <draft-freed-smtp-limits-07> for your review

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:44 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> --On Monday, January 8, 2024 23:08 -0800
> [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve
> > (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the
> > XML file.
> >
> > 1) <!--[rfced] Limits vs. LIMITS
> >
> > Section 3 states:
> >    The name of the extension is "Limits".  Servers
> > implementing this    extension advertise an additional
> > "LIMITS" EHLO (LHLO in LMTP) keyword.
> >
> > "Limits" is used several times (abstract, introduction, etc.).
> > Should the document title be updated, or is it preferable to
> > let "LIMITS" remain in that location? For comparison:
> >
> > Document title:
> >  The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension
> >
> > Section 3 title:
> >  The "Limits" SMTP Extension
> > -->
>
> At least most of this difference is either the result of Ned
> writing at different times or my editing subsequent to his
> passing being inconsistent.  If Murray feels strongly about
> this, I will defer to him, but the IANA registry for SMTP
> extensions [1] shows extension names.  If we take that as
> guidance, the document title is correct, the Section 3 title
> should be identical (upper case, no quotes) and other instances
> should be upper case and no quotes when they are referring to
> the extension name and lower case (no quotes and no leading
> capital "L") when they are talking about limits or limit values
> rather than the extension.
>
> If it works for you, I'd prefer that you go through and make
> those changes and let me check them afterwards.  While Ned and I
> probably knew what we intended, if the intention is not clear to
> you, it probably implies a sentence that should be flagged and
> rewritten.
>

I concur with John's assessment and suggestion.

-MSK