IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] Issue #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 06 December 2009 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D294B3A6948 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:01:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZxEl8uf37Jrf for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10B43A693E for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id nB6J0kUG003993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:00:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1260126055; x=1260212455; bh=irwBo2KBX3QR7oAGi6W4MltWLnJO10G5aDypShUYYls=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=sV71Pj624Eq5U7aUkz6navzXMPM04pkkmw7obpCONU2ErhbzJNm9y+8ErNzsoRdQ8 gJtwe5+YJXRmv5X+BmXgjQjy6QFirKlNKYv5C7vofykAKf5vTV92Yioi3YvnFkcfRC FDP8TciQ9BWNXvsyVndH1VCSSA2OampofjvffGWo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=qpl8LLUy+TpnoCqWxnclFcJYcxc+SACXqUXr5KZf3UQhA/R1xnUfpgBXWQu8qLiky dtzVDJ3iZcNlohb1mtV26DrWPzkbd6iUIlRmIyu1a4QsPJ6Ip66KdAxNupa2dcVrYAN 2oIaJz6VEjBFas121Dnti9Efj/qxKBAhmjFcwv4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091206100948.045f4670@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:29:30 -0800
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B1BE127.2010804@tana.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20091206010955.033ce0a0@elandnews.com> <4B1BE127.2010804@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Issue #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:01:08 -0000

Hi Alessandro,
At 08:51 06-12-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>5321 and 4409 are both on the yam list. Which one(s) of them define 
>extensions? They'll

The Extension Model is defined in Section 2.2 of RFC 5321.

>  have to agree with each other... Perhaps, it would be more 
> comfortable to decide about

Yes but it is better not to have each document reference each other 
normatively.

>this issue after having given some thought to RFC 4409. In this 
>case, I'd be curious to know whether the 2-step process would allow 
>working on both in parallel.

Yes.

>Which one? (As you say, RFC 4409 is referenced already.)

The reference to RFC 4409 is Informative.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email