IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv6-smtp-requirement-07.txt

itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Mon, 15 December 2003 00:15 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBF0Feib091221 for <ietf-smtp-bks@above.proper.com>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:15:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBF0FeEL091220 for ietf-smtp-bks; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:15:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [219.101.47.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBF0FJib091193 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:15:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org)
Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9E5F393; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:15:20 +0900 (JST)
To: tony@att.com
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv6-smtp-requirement-07.txt
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:17:01 -0500" <3FDBBA0D.2030401@att.com>
References: <3FDBBA0D.2030401@att.com>
X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20031215001520.9E5F393@coconut.itojun.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:15:20 +0900
From: itojun@itojun.org
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>

> > Personal opinion: I believe the document will have more impact if 
> > published separately from the revision to RFC 2821.  I also believe that 
> > tying this to the revision of RFC 2821 would significantly delay a 
> > published specification for how to use SMTP in the IPv6 world.
> I agree completely -- get it out there as its own RFC. Anything appropriate for 
> 2821bis can be added whenever that draft starts circulating.

	ok, i see the point.  then question to the ADs - is the current draft
	sufficient, or it sill need fixing?  (i know it's holiday season
	over there already so no need to hurry)

itojun

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email