Re: Ok, let's see if we can make this converge
Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com> Tue, 06 October 1992 05:20 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17731; 6 Oct 92 1:20 EDT
Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17725; 6 Oct 92 1:20 EDT
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04170; 6 Oct 92 1:25 EDT
Received: by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11116; Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:14:26 EDT
Received: from ics.uci.edu by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11108; Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:14:22 EDT
Received: from nma.com by q2.ics.uci.edu id ab21253; 5 Oct 92 22:12 PDT
Received: from ics.uci.edu by odin.nma.com id aa05247; 5 Oct 92 20:31 PDT
To: John C Klensin <KLENSIN@infoods.mit.edu>
Cc: ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Ok, let's see if we can make this converge
Reply-To: Stef=smtp@nma.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 20:31:23 -0700
Message-Id: <5244.718342283@nma.com>
X-Orig-Sender: stef@nma.com
Hello John, Your assessment of the working group's course of action, based on the IESG response sounds legitimate, reasonable, and concise. However, it looks like it will take a long time, which I believe we should avoid. With that in mind, I want to suggest an alternative approach (see below) to pursuing resolution. If this is to be considered, it will be helpful if folks respond with a first-level reaction of: "I prefer to follow John's plan" or "I prefer to follow Stef's alternative". (Other responses are fine, but it will not be helpful to the cause if this note engenders yet-another lengthy debate. So, lets just accept or reject this alternative suggestion, and not spend a lot of time "considering" it.) Before making my suggestion, I should note that Keith's SIZE draft has undergone some revision, and in its latest version (just released), it covers all that is in the AMSS draft, and optionally allows per message and per recipient discrimination on size. Thus, SIZE should replace AMSS, and AMSS should be dropped. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My alternative suggestion is: Take the new draft documents (EHLO, 8BIT, and SIZE) as concrete proposals, and accept or reject them. The I-Ds are: draft-rose-extensions-03.txt (EHLO) draft-rose-8bit-02.txt (8BIT) draft-moore-extension-size-02.txt (SIZE) If accepted, then develop a separate document which is the SMTP clarification text which might otherwise be in a Mail Requirements document. If accepted, this will let us get the core documents out quickly, without going through another writing-and-refinement round. If rejected, go back to the original WG Internet-Draft and review it in the light of all that has happened since LAST CALL. Or, think of something else to do. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Best...\Stef
- Ok, let's see if we can make this converge John C Klensin
- Re: Ok, let's see if we can make this converge Einar Stefferud