IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 06 December 2009 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 7043F3A68CB for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:52:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hksXeVZ3x0Lw for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918C33A67E1 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 ale@tana.it, TLS: TLS1.0, 256bits, RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with esmtp; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:51:51 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004B1BE127.00002E77
Message-ID: <4B1BE127.2010804@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:51:51 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20091206010955.033ce0a0@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20091206010955.033ce0a0@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 16:52:06 -0000

Hi SM,

SM wrote:
> SMTP is generally used for mail transfer.  There are other protocols for 
> message submission such as RFC 4409 (see Section 3.6.3).

5321 and 4409 are both on the yam list. Which one(s) of them define 
extensions? They'll have to agree with each other... Perhaps, it would 
be more comfortable to decide about 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.

> I do not support adding the following bullet to Section 2.2 of RFC 5321:
> 
>    Future SMTP extensions SHOULD explicitly specify if they are
>    valid on the Submission port."
> 
> to keep the two protocols separate and to avoid an additional normative 
> reference in RFC 5321.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email