Re: [Gen-art] Genart Last Call review of draft-freed-smtp-limits-06

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

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Section 7.2 seems to conflate two things:
>
> - the information that must be provided in a specification
>    document that registers new limits
>
> - the information that is to included in the registry itself
>
> ISTM that the registry itself should contain the limit name and a
> reference to the specification document. It might also contain the value
> syntax, or at least an indication if a value is allowed.
>
> The descriptions of semantics, restrictions, and security considerations
> don't lend themselves to inclusion in the registry, but should be
> clearly spelled out in the specification.
>

This is an interesting observation.  I suppose I overlooked it because by
now I'm used to both types of registries.  A good example of this style is
the media types registry, where some of the details (e.g., option names)
that you might normally expect to find in the specification document only
are actually also required to be present in the registry.  That model of
registry has been around for a pretty long time and we seem to be fine with
it.  But most other newer registries are just a table of the reserved name
and a reference to the specifying document, with all of the details
typically stored in the latter, with maybe a "status" column included.

I'd be inclined to split the difference, and say either the registry has to
contain the limit value's syntax, or a reference to the defining document
where such can be found.  We allow this in the media types registry for
security considerations, for example.


> Also, the request for the new registry should probably include its exact
> name ("SMTP Server Limits"?), and that it should be included within the
> "MAIL Parameters" protocol registry.
>

I agree, precision here is never a bad thing.

-MSK