Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

I completely agree with John.  A note on the errata is fine (since it 
has already been marked as verified).

At 2:28 PM -0400 5/23/14, John C Klensin wrote:

>  Unless I'm wrong about how motivated any of us are to do a 6409
>  update to fix this, can we just note (as a comment on the
>  erratum since it has gotten this far) that there is an issue
>  with the text (as noted) and that it needs to be examined
>  carefully in any rewrite.  I agree with Randy's comments about
>  clarity, but doubt that is worth spending a lot more time on now
>  unless something thinks the issue is really important enough to
>  justify a revision.
>
>     john
>
>
>  --On Friday, 23 May, 2014 08:07 -0700 Randall Gellens
>  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  I think the wording is unclear and should be improved.  See
>>  in-line:
>>
>>  At 3:59 AM -0700 5/22/14, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>
>>>   The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6409,
>>>   "Message Submission for Mail".
>>>
>>>   --------------------------------------
>>>   You may review the report below and at:
>>>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6409&eid=3995
>>>
>>>   --------------------------------------
>>>   Type: Technical
>>>   Reported by: Tony Finch <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>   Section: 8.7
>>>
>>>   Original Text
>>>   -------------
>>>      NOTE: SMTP [SMTP-MTA] prohibits the use of domain name
>>>      aliases in addresses and the session-opening
>>>      announcement.  As with other SMTP requirements, RFC 5321
>>>      effectively prohibits an MSA from forwarding such
>>>      messages into the public Internet.  Nonetheless,
>>>      unconditionally resolving aliases could be harmful.  For
>>>      example, if www.example.net and ftp.example.net are both
>>>      aliases for mail.example.net, rewriting them could lose
>>>      useful information.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Corrected Text
>>>   --------------
>>>      NOTE: RFC 821 and RFC 1123 prohibited the use of domain
>>>      name aliases in addresses and the session-opening
>>>      announcement.
>>
>>
>>
>>>      Because of this it is still common for MTAs to
>>>      canonicalize domains in email addresses.
>>
>>  Because of what?  The prohibition on CNAMEs?
>>
>>  "it is still common for MTAs to" should be worded as "some
>>  MTAs" to be more factual (otherwise it raises questions of how
>>  common).
>>
>>>    However this requirement was dropped
>>
>>  What requirement was dropped?  The wording should be clear.
>>
>>>      during the development of RFC 2821.  The current rules
>>>      about domain name aliases are set out in RFC 5321 section
>>>      2.3.5.
>>>
>>>   Notes
>>>   -----
>>>
>>>
>>>   Instructions:
>>>   -------------
>>>   This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
>>>   please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
>>>   verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
>>>   verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and
>>>   edit the report, if necessary.
>>>
>>>   --------------------------------------
>>>   RFC6409 (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03)
>>>   --------------------------------------
>>>   Title               : Message Submission for Mail
>>>   Publication Date    : November 2011
>>>   Author(s)           : R. Gellens, J. Klensin
>>>   Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
>>>   Source              : Yet Another Mail
>>>   Area                : Applications
>>>   Stream              : IETF
>>>   Verifying Party     : IESG


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.