Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 05 April 2005 14:13 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35EDfhL077461; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j35EDfXs077460; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [208.184.79.137]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35EDfXn077454 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhc@dcrocker.net)
Received: from bbfujip7 (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j35EESl2008458; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:14:29 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: Bruce Lilly <ietf-smtp@imc.org>, ietf-smtp@imc.org
X-Mailer: PocoMail 3.4 (2130) - Licensed Version
X-URL: bbiw.net
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:13:39 -0400
Message-ID: <200545101339.938713@bbfujip7>
In-Reply-To: <200504050829.18072.blilly@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id j35EDfXn077455
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
> The Abstract and Introduction refer to "the first standardized > architecture for email". That would be FTP (MAIL and MLFL commands). I > believe that the quoted phrase above should be replaced by "RFC 821". No, the first standardized architecture was the IFIP WG 6.5 effort, later, that fed the X.400 work. There was no public, standard "architecture" work prior to that. Prior to that there was email *service* in a number of places -- and even significant *private* architecture work -- but nothing that could be called a "standardized architecture". The UA-MTA model was derived from assessing 4 extant services, which had been independently developed, and detecting strong similarities among their high-level architectures. For reference, there was no "standard" for arpanet mail content until RFC733, in 1977. That was the word "standard" in the title of the document AND getting formal Arpa approval to use it. (It happens that this was the first RFC to declare itself a formal standard, and it caused quite a firestorm.) Please note: "All RFCs are not standards". > The introduction also states "Core aspects of the service, such as address > and message style, have remained remarkably constant." In fact there have > been significant changes, ... It is incorrect to imply > that these changes haven't happened; Saying "core aspects" leaves all sorts of room for "other", and hardly constitutes an implication that the changes you cite have not occurred. >at minimum these changes should be > acknowledged, The text is non-normative and is not intended to provide a history of email development. That would be a delightful bit of text to read, no doubt, but it is not a goal of this document. > Section 1.3 and subsequent sections use the term "bounce", which implies > non-delivery whereas the term is used to cover cases that include positive > delivery notifications as well as informational notices about delayed > transmission. the problem with terminology, here, is matching existing practise, in particular finding a term that people will be comfortable with. as nearly as i can tell, 'bounce' is a common term, in spite of the fact that it also applies to intermediate and successful delivery notices. > Figure 2 implies that a recipient can only respond to an originator if the > message passed through a mediator. mumble. grrr. yeah. i had hoped to avoid having each recipient have a line going back, and i did worry about anyone drawing the implication you cite, but what the heck. i'll make the change. > > Section 2.2.3 states "A Relay may add information to the envelope, such as > with trace information. However it does not modify existing envelope > information or the message content semantics". Routes in paths (forward > and reverse) generally are modified in transit. Routes in paths are now > somewhat uncommon, but are not obsolete and should not be ignored in a > description of the mail system architecture. what specific changes are you saying are legal for an mta to do? please cite the rfc2821 text that authorizes it. > Section 4.6 refers to "relationship among two MSs". The relationship is > between an MS and an rMUA (simply "MUA" in the draft as written). > Synchronization between "local" and "remote" MSs occurs when they are > connected to a common rMUA. yesthe rMUA take the actions that effect synchronization between the MSs. however it is synchronization between the MSs that is of interest. > Section 5.5 should explicitly caution against mangling of Originator > fields (e.g. see draft-malamud-subject-line-04.txt). You might have noticed that that section is rather short. There are all sorts of things one might put into such a section, but I most clearly was not intending to make the section be any kind of thorough. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
- Fw: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-arch… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Keith Moore
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Hector Santos
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Claus Assmann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-e… Dave Crocker
- Extraneous CRs in transfer of draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Mark E. Mallett
- Re: Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuati… Dave Crocker
- Editorial/typographical/grammatical/punctuation/u… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-ar… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… willemien
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Hector Santos
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: reassembly Bruce Lilly
- reassembly Dave Crocker
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Frank Ellermann
- Re: "addressing" comments on draft-crocker-email-… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Keith Moore
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Keith Moore
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Tony Finch
- Re: "User" confusion and incomplete description o… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Dave Crocker
- Re: Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email… Bruce Lilly
- Miscellaneous comments on draft-crocker-email-arc… Bruce Lilly
- "User" confusion and incomplete description of ar… Bruce Lilly
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Keith Moore
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Dave Crocker
- Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-0… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Bruce Lilly
- message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draft-cr… Bruce Lilly
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Tony Finch
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Frank Ellermann
- Re: message-identifiers vs. "new message" in draf… Dave Crocker