IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 26 December 2019 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 69EF41200EF; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 13:25:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0_76vviHX-DX; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20A711200EC; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ikad2-000GLK-Ma; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:25:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:25:01 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
cc: art-ads@ietf.org
Message-ID: <51687BBD4A8BE746029B52A2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <1f790d74-bb2d-6453-61c6-131b502478b1@dcrocker.net>
References: <FCDE38AEA7DDB9BB0FB206F9@PSB> <1f790d74-bb2d-6453-61c6-131b502478b1@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/pz1wWUWe2l_MX35EYAe50MA8z_A>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
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: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 21:25:11 -0000


--On Thursday, December 26, 2019 11:16 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 12/26/2019 11:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> G.2.  Meaning of "MTA" and Related Terminology
>>       G.3.  Originator, or Originating System, Authentication
> 
> 
> So, the goal is to have multiple places that provide text for
> these, to increase ambiguity and confusion?

No, Dave.  It is to discuss whether the terminology and
definitions of 5321bis are in harmony with your Informational
document and with contemporary practice, and, if not, to make a
decision as to whether one or the other is worth fixing.

  john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email