IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Tue, 18 August 2009 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
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 89D063A69BC for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EMJT-iQwClNI for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E4A3A67DB for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1250626005!13014630!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.1.3; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25]
Received: (qmail 24163 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2009 20:06:45 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-14.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Aug 2009 20:06:45 -0000
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK6jNP008653 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:06:45 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK6c7f008381 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:06:38 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK6cGi008059 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:06:38 -0400
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IK6XEC007883 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:06:33 -0400
Received: from [135.25.190.18] (gilly-ibm.ugd.att.com[135.25.190.18]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20090818200633gw1003ibcte> (Authid: tony); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:06:33 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.25.190.18]
Message-ID: <4A8B09C9.7050407@att.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:06:33 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: yam@ietf.org
References: <4A848309.8020107@dcrocker.net> <4A848FD4.6080601@att.com> <4A84B8DF.4020107@dcrocker.net> <4A84BD5C.9010000@att.com> <4A8577E2.3020908@dcrocker.net> <4A85A390.6050104@att.com> <4A896397.7080008@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A896397.7080008@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [yam] preliminary -- draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:06:42 -0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 
> Other suggestions (as an individual contributor):
> 1). I think the extension registration needs to be updated to say that 
> the extension is valid on Submission port.

Aren't all SMTP extensions implicitly defined for the Submission port 
unless specifically *not* allowed?

> 2). Change 1 line ABNF in section 2 to use RFC 5234 syntax:
> OLD:
> 
> body-value ::= "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"
> 
> 
> NEW:
> 
> body-value = "7BIT" / "8BITMIME"

Advantage: it's a simple update, a single line, trivial to do, and easy 
to check for accuracy.

Disadvantage: Does it set the expectation that we'll adjust 8BNF => ABNF 
in future YAM updates? How slippery is the slope?

Any other thoughts on this?

	Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email