Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

On 3/6/2020 11:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> A placeholder for whether we need to review some of all of the
> timeouts has been added to the working copy of 5321bis-03.  As
> with all of the other Appendix G entries for which there is not
> already text in the I-D (text that was inserted either as an
> obvious fix or after extended discussion on this list), I am
> taking no position about what, if anything, should be done: I'm
> just keeping a list.  One implication of that is that, if anyone
> is going to suggest something that they don't think belongs on
> the list... well, either say that or don't suggest it.

You have much in Appendix G. All appears to be legit issue to review. 
  Thanks for the addition of my recent comments. The only thing that 
stood out and can't get it out of my mind, is the change to the 
Acknowledgments. I personally don't feel good about it. But as part of 
my stress reduction therapy, I just deleted a paragraph describing my 
feeling about that change. I will just say, it has served as a "small 
badge" of honor to be recognized as a long time participant and 
implementor of SMTP for a number of decades.

> Question for this list: I have not planned on posting -03 until
> we have a WG.  It differs from the current draft on the servers
> (-02) only in that Appendix G has been expanded a bit, most
> recently with the "1yz" and timeout topics.  If anyone thinks
> having it posted before IETF 107 would be helpful, e.g., to
> facilitate any informal conversations that might occur then,
> please say so and say so soon.

+1 I think I-D -03 should be submitted before IETF 107 for the reasons 
you stated.

-- 
HLS