IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Negotiated noncompliance

Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 30 August 2000 11:03 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 HAA23969 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA18405; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:02:31 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA18386; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from msw.mimesweeper.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA18368; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from msw.mimesweeper.com (194.168.90.18 -> msw.mimesweeper.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:02:28 -0400
Received: from msw42.mimesweeper.com (unverified) by msw.mimesweeper.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <Tc2a85a12834e58118243@msw.mimesweeper.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:03:11 +0100
Received: from BELL.mimesweeper.com (unverified) by msw42.mimesweeper.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.0) with ESMTP id <T4e580f412ac2a85a1906c@msw42.mimesweeper.com>; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:00:43 +0100
Received: from GK-VAIO.dial.pipex.com (gk-vaio.mimesweeper.com [194.168.90.137]) by BELL.mimesweeper.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id R7CC7XPT; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:01:23 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000830114814.00cde610@pop.dial.pipex.com>
X-Sender: mdgr07@pop.dial.pipex.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:54:18 +0100
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
From: Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
Cc: lear@cisco.com, John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>, drums@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <200008171319.JAA24350@astro.cs.utk.edu>
References: <Your message of "Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:32:37 PDT." <399BA325.55A39FA3@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

At 09:19 AM 8/17/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>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.  ...

Yes!  While I appreciate the motivation for the texts offered, I think we 
want to try and avoid expending too many words on describing what the 
standard is not.  So, slightly re-working Keith's text might yield the 
following:


An implementation may deviate from this specification in an attempt to 
interwork with another non-conformant implementation, but any such behavior 
is outside of the scope of the standard.

[Note: lower case "may".]

#g

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email