Re: Last Call: <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> (SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes) to Proposed Standard

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6B21A6EF9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 E6y1Tw4Tsb1C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B30CF1A1B3D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by widem10 with SMTP id em10so6194831wid.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:21:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=NzJ9fDu5MxhQthtKJq8RoBn9wdI3yQ5rCnLGFWjSqfU=; b=WT4RY7LS7jGthSKhcqnyBRwE/oRjniv80GQLbfQ0pXyHykYs1WbNXlRE0LYXwbQQmo BvAcNc3Xud/7OKHUN7nYQkmFX2n6ulJg4FIHWbIBOnYT17Lq9kw1/RC+uuGCSkRh6Pz0 lIRNPZcGfuUuFMURFfIM349VNa9eGSEdqOqSOafYw0xgjDizJ5D4lNPMRp/WlKVbgPKk QC1IqLdwSxtp8hnFxBhYNq1w30cAv3SSTsZq+yzpacPlVWz4DKkiwG4kslRU8qx4aXj3 UWqxtU62AC3g13h6+AWDmSai68NVeGZEAshbG5Axq9RTozAT0IFq9NiNYUIEp5feB9dk NuPQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.185.9 with SMTP id ey9mr33592544wjc.135.1425676919510; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.212 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:21:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20150305200224.29517.60563.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150305200224.29517.60563.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:21:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZRnswn606N1iDrCp+rc6Y4C7TfiLF+-4THsTb56-Z-kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> (SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes) to Proposed Standard
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6adce5a1a7c0510a54658"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ntfa3V2-U3uSnF-EREnMjMD83SY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 21:22:05 -0000

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:02 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes'
>   <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This memo defines two Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) reply
>    codes, 521 and 556.  The 521 code was originally described in an
>    Experimental RFC in 1995 and is in wide use, but has not previously
>    been formally incorporated into SMTP.  The 556 code was created for
>    RFC-nullMX.  These codes are used to indicate that an Internet host
>    does not accept incoming mail at all (not just under particular
>    circumstances).
>

I support publication of this work.  I have the following minor comments:

Section 2 says that a client trying to talk to a server that provides no
SMTP service will eventually time out.  That's not universally true; trying
to talk to a server that's up but not offering SMTP service can also cause
an immediate error if an RST comes back in reply to the SYN because there's
nothing listening on port 25.

In Section 3, there's an errant semicolon.

Should Section 5.1 also add 521 to the list of valid connection termination
conditions in Section 3.8 of RFC5321?

-MSK