New SMTP response codes
"Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org> Wed, 14 May 1997 01:14 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa07154; 13 May 97 21:14 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20681; 13 May 97 21:14 EDT
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id RAA21814 for ietf-smtp-bks; Tue, 13 May 1997 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [165.227.249.100] (dharma.proper.com [165.227.249.100]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA21806 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Tue, 13 May 1997 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v0310282eaf9ebd82fe9d@[165.227.249.100]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 17:59:40 -0700
To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
From: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: New SMTP response codes
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
And now for something completely different. I needed a new SMTP response code for an SMTP extension I'm writing. However, I could not find any central registry of them. This seems to be a bit of a problem, because I don't want to choose the same one that some other extension writer has chosen. (I'm pretty sure I didn't. I grepped all the mail-related drafts and RFCs on the IMC site for "560", the number I chose, and got nothing relevant.) This isn't a pressing need, but it could be embarassing if we end up with two standards-track SMTP extensions that use the same new error code for very different things. Sounds like a job for IANA, but we need to define what IANA should do. My straw-man proposal is: - Start with a list of all response codes from 821 and all standards-track RFCs (I can compile this) - Generally treat this like the TCP port number reservation scheme (first come, first served) - Require that a registrant provide: Name Email address Name of Internet Draft the code is used in Date of first use Because the response code space is limited, it might eventually fill up and someone will have to go through and cull out the response codes that were reserved but for which there is no valid Internet Draft or RFC. However, that will hopefully not happen for a decade or two, given that SMTP extensions should not be promulgated willy-nilly. Thoughts? --Paul E. Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
- New SMTP response codes Paul E. Hoffman
- Re: New SMTP response codes Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: New SMTP response codes John C Klensin
- Re: New SMTP response codes Ned Freed
- RE: New SMTP response codes Jeff Stephenson (Exchange)
- Re: RE: New SMTP response codes John C Klensin
- Reconnect/Retransmission Dave Crocker
- Re: New SMTP response codes Keith Moore