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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

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