Re: New SMTP response codes

"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com> Wed, 14 May 1997 01:28 UTC

Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 21:06:59 -0400
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>
To: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: New SMTP response codes
In-Reply-To: <v0310282eaf9ebd82fe9d@[165.227.249.100]>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970513210342.5056B-100000@cybercash.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Paul,

(1) I suggest you grep drafts also.  I belive there are proposed SMTP 
response codes in draft-eastlake-internet-payment-*.txt.

(2) Intelligent allocation based on a balancing of the factor from a 
limited pool is exactly what IANA is best for.  The main problems that 
have arisen are when large amounts of money seem to be involved, which I 
think unlikely for SMTP response codes.

Donald

On Tue, 13 May 1997, Paul E. Hoffman wrote: 

> Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 17:59:40 -0700
> From: Paul E. Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
> To: ietf-smtp@imc.org
> Subject: New SMTP response codes
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd     +1 508-287-4877(tel)     dee@cybercash.com
   318 Acton Street        +1 508-371-7148(fax)     dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA     +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com           http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html

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