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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sun, 08 March 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985283A0C6C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=iSElQuiN; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=QD5rhePg
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6krAV-4BnQVn for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C72BF3A0C67 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1694; t=1583683217; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=gkyfwIARxr3CK8qa5m18iinmRU4=; b=iSElQuiN4McA01KbaVA3pThuZoY+jjZFT+IeteySxV4N3WL1aiaRaWTQa6WAf6 HtVjYRunqg1FkpBDbqMnIcqF5/cet3rM/czQeoebh30WRuLfyJ6a6Y0PZR3KsIzN nJjLPlNlccOcuVV2HGSfc9OuyAf2ixiR6fZuhO3rr7F+s=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 11:00:17 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=fail (DKIM_SELECTOR_DNS_PERM_FAILURE) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=dkim-fail policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 3000542131.16278.7548; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 11:00:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1694; t=1583682931; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=ufQRFji xRc6iYm9KxNIMStpqJgMt1yX4Q36R3tCtN8k=; b=QD5rhePgLonBPF20Z8RrHH0 lQDNSoH2S5KAnv0MI1JM5ovUdKx+a6glxzQJMGZKGuy8aT+jMCa2YJXYJQTYaeB9 lqsgRcUZbNFHpPydu1EP7Svicd9RrUsZ3PnLuifa6Mu0bJg6NrPEGNuCo7yCQJPT uJ3XfqNJ0D5dqzqeLJQI=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 11:55:31 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 2848570921.4.11504; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 11:55:30 -0400
Message-ID: <5E651680.2040401@isdg.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 12:00:00 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
References: <1583290845.3368.15.camel@gmail.com> <aedd19df-c406-2513-934e-4498ae159964@pscs.co.uk> <5E6128C8.7070001@isdg.net> <5E613D31.70301@isdg.net> <CFEDA025D86BD13BB8D15A56@PSB> <5E61B94D.9020104@isdg.net> <466b05c4-8db2-b0d8-8e87-8e8034aea97b@pscs.co.uk> <5E626AB7.60201@isdg.net> <077D34FA57C4F80562C7AF83@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <077D34FA57C4F80562C7AF83@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/dLf6lBeNlCI8JFp5QYNOgrZrWAU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 16:00:23 -0000

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