Re: Negotiated noncompliance
Chris Newman <cnewman@innosoft.com> Thu, 17 August 2000 19:41 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 PAA03523 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA02133; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:14 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA02113; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA02087; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (192.9.25.1 -> mercury.Sun.COM) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:41:08 -0400
Received: from westmail2.West.Sun.COM ([129.153.100.30]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07104 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nifty-jr.west.sun.com (nifty-jr.West.Sun.COM [129.153.12.95]) by westmail2.West.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v1.7) with ESMTP id MAA20072 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:39:44 -0700
From: Chris Newman <cnewman@innosoft.com>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
Message-ID: <63058.3175504784@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <399BA325.55A39FA3@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.3 (MacOS)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Personally, I'd like to see some text in this area. I'm very fond of the precision of John's text, but agree with some of the concerns expressed about scope. I like Eliot's first paragraph, but the second is far too vague. Here's an attempt to take the best of both and address concerns expressed: ----- 6.4 Interoperability with Noncompliant Implementations This standard takes a stricter tone than its predecessor in order to discourage deployment of non-complaint software and to prevent harm caused by poorly designed attempts to interoperate with deployed non-compliant software. It does so with the experience of nearly twenty years of odd interoperability failures, and with the realization that where-as thousands of people used SMTP at the time of RFC 821, now millions of people rely on the standard. Non-conformance, therefore, can be far more costly. If an implementation receives protocol which is not permitted by the specification and the specification does not mandate the response to such illegal protocol, the implementation can treat this as a negotiated a non-standard protocol. At that point, the implementation is not constrained by the protocol specification in its handling of that particular connection. Implmentations which choose to do this SHOULD narrowly tailor the accepted non-compliant protocol to that strictly necessary to interoperate with known deployed non-compliant software. For example, if an SMTP server receives commands terminated by the ASCII character "LF" but not containing the ASCII character "CR", it can decide the SMTP client has negotiated a nonstandard variant of the SMTP protocol wherein the <CRLF> sequence is encoded as a single "LF" character. The prohibition against recognizing the sequence "<LF>.<LF>" as the end of mail data indication would then not apply to that particular connection. Note that this negotiation does not release the implementation from the conformance requirements in any other protocol session, including any session that relays mail received from a negotiated nonstandard protocol variant. -----
- 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