IETF Logo Mail Archive

[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 10:43 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 10BBC3A6972 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 02:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 zilavDMH9dgE for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 02:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BFA3A690C for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 02:43:58 -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 nB6AhW2A003455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 02:43:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1260096226; x=1260182626; bh=woBpxxTb6HCaGZ5jK3KpdLT8X2AKAVAWDeez8tyJgmo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=akAHTRUzN+ivFmEstCZpFxWYj12r5YfEd1gABEsVmRJHrZ6ixiXc7H5sNYr8Rh0j7 gynyWY29ByOAZ05hZut53+AqeejWJIUGDgEtpDuz84555npbnTLB7R3jxswin2vdVw y6U0jQO35LTiPkR/auvE3h2S5Muy3t0a1NRdgXfA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=oASRpgX4Obvagr00Ftt1SJtkM12w0Kpqc0cNhO6pHFcJ4n/oHaZD4GsY8yYpXxOUr ZxMHcsgXjzf49i6fe7oyQpkaD5br12L4wuSuEPs5COFHtdJYFxIKg6EkL6IT4Gdhkkh 7jquZbufA3QBKU+fpxhyEnM5/FTBTumf9rN1MEs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091206010955.033ce0a0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:24:55 -0800
To: yam@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [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 10:43:59 -0000

Hello,

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

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email