Re: Negotiated noncompliance
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 17 August 2000 13:19 UTC
Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26104 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA22335; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:25 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA22318; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA22302; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (128.169.93.168 -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:23 -0400
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24350; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200008171319.JAA24350@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: lear@cisco.com
cc: John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:32:37 PDT." <399BA325.55A39FA3@cisco.com>
X-SUBJECT-MSG-FROM: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:19:20 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Eliot's text is a lot closer to what I think. However, using MAY may be too strong - it implies that behavior which an SMTP engages in to accomodate a broken peer is within the scope of the standard. It might be better to say that if an implementation deviates from the SMTP spec in an attempt to accomodate another implementation which deviates from the SMTP spec, such behavior is outside of the scope of the standard. So an implementation which does this is not immediately nonconforming, but neither is such behavior blessed. still, this whole idea makes me nervous. I'll say more if I can articulate my concerns. Keith
- Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Dave Crocker
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Dave Crocker
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Barry Leiba
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Chris Newman
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Philip Hazel
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance DRUMS WG Chair
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Robert Elz
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Philip Hazel
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Robert Elz
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Russ Allbery
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Claus Färber
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Graham Klyne
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Barry Finkel