Re: [yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 00:06 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 026A63A72A6 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 OD0vM1FkHSFg for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4675B3A6816 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1C07FcR028617 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:07:21 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1265933242; x=1266019642; bh=YXbXuCOMxSQA1erxEkMIpBzmAFs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=wgBbzG2Ko7cwQhjqI4/vKqlYNE8lJiP5QPCBOVPPnq4i4UbyL4Nc7eHVxcpTXaYKg d16fkk3C+MDFVpubTR/7yH71jXMNyYHY7s7GP+xDstBrYneL5YFc2GuQqPPoKOeypa 4gbRxWzFtL89dq04PmTRN/p3n47D0xTt/z2raHn8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100211160636.0972def0@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:53 -0800
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?
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: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:06:07 -0000
At 10:33 11-02-10, Dave CROCKER wrote: >On 1/25/2010 1:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>On 20/Jan/10 23:45, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>Title : SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport >> >>Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and >>Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet... This is being tracked as Issue # 17. I added Dave's comment with it. If you would like them to be tracked as separate issues, please send me an email. >Given that an extension like this declares its intended venue -- >note "/SMTP/ Service Extension" I would guess that it should also >declare other venues that it is valid for. So yeah, it might be >appropriate to have it declare that it's for Submit, also. > >But I'm not positive. I'm particularly concerned that there might >be a subtle issue here that I'm missing. As an individual comment, it may be more of a legacy issue than a subtle issue. Section 7 of RFC 4409 lists 8BITMIME as a SHOULD for Submit together with a reference to RFC 1652. When an extension specification declares its intended venue, there is an IANA registration and the requirement level as a guidance for implementers. I don't see any issue for RFC 1652bis as a person implementing Submit will find the declaration in RFC 4409. Regards, S. Moonesamy