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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alessandro,
At 01:52 07-12-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>Yes it is, but no IANA registry of extensions is defined. RFC 4409 
>defines no registry either, but lists its initial values. Will that 
>list have to be updated for 4409bis? And how will it be maintained thereafter?

There is a SMTP Service Extensions registry defined in Section 2.2.2 
of RFC 5321.  The IANA Considerations section of 4409bis would have 
to be updated with text about the registry.  There is already a 
registration procedure.

>This can be avoided with a well crafted IANA registry definition: 
>RFC 5321 may just acknowledge that the extension mechanism can be 
>reused by "other protocols", if they are similar enough to SMTP. The 
>extensions IANA table definition may thus provide for adding a 
>column for each look-alike protocol, and a row for each extension. 
>The RFCs where the look-alike protocol is defined must also provide 
>the column values for already registered extensions --which is what 
>4409bis would then do. Likewise, as new extensions register 
>additional rows, they must provide the values for already existing columns.

The registry already mentions SMTP and Submit.  Instructions to IANA 
should be clear.  It is better to avoid terms like "other protocols".

>That way, 2033bis would be able to add its own column as well, 
>without circular normative references.

Is anybody working on the LMTP specification?

Regards,
-sm