RFC 1123bis?

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Tony Finch wrote:

>> If so, should this be stated in the revised text?
> 
> Not in 3207 - this requirement is inherited from 5321.

On a related, we desperately need another RFC 1123, the "holy bible" 
for Internet hosting as I called it. :-)

Something that puts it all together again.   I just find it funny how 
we can be at times so anal about the whys things are done, with 
partial references and presumptions of inherit understanding, yet, we 
end up revisiting, rewriting things when something occurs people 
worked hard to prevent.  I carry a favorite motto from my old High 
School English teacher, "Being specific is Terrific."   It has helped 
in all my writings, technical or otherwise.

Today, with SMTP and all the augmented extensions, etc, a consolidated 
technical summary guide is necessary.  Not everyone is as keen as 
others where they know every RFC nook and cranny, every twist and turn 
issues related to the email system.

Of course, the question can be asked, should a SMTP implementor, new 
or otherwise, but especially new, be aware of all encompassing 
details, every RFC, etc, related to SMTP before he even attempts to 
write a server or client?  Can 5321 alone do the job for a minimum 
design of standard server or client?

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com