Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to Draft Standard (1)

Ned said most of what I wanted to, but a couple of little points:

On 12/11/07 at 1:19 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>The spec. could note that there are mutilating^Wcomplex lists 
>violating the MUST.  It could also say SHOULD, an RFC on standards 
>track might be a good excuse to violate this SHOULD (a SHOULD is 
>also the shortest possible fix).

This seems like nonsense lawyering instead of doing something useful 
in this document. Someone who is implementing a minimal SMTP really 
ought to respect the "MUST be left unchanged". Yes, it would be 
lovely if every document referred to every other document related to 
it, except that it would be a nightmare of criss-crossing documents.

Furthermore, see Dave's message re: why the simple "multi-casting" 
lists are worth talking about in 2821bis, whereas the other sorts are 
not.

>Admittedly RFC 2369 and 2919 don't reference [2]821, but as DS 
>2821bis trumps PS, and a MUST is critical by definition.  If there 
>are good excuses lets say SHOULD.

I most emphatically disagree that a Draft Standard "trumps" a 
Proposed Standard in this sense. A DS defines a well-understood and 
stable protocol. What is well understood and stable is that header 
changes cause damage.  A PS may propose that some header changes 
won't cause damage and are a good thing. That's fine. It doesn't mean 
that the MUST in a DS "trumps" a PS doing something different.

The rest of your message is wandering into DKIM and other spam 
related things having nothing to do with this discussion.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf