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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2938D1A016D for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZDaJmwOD01GV for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43BA01A00B7 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WnV2m-000Ec8-2z; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:36:32 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:36:58 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <4EFB403085AB3DD86EAABE47@JCK-EEE10>
In-Reply-To: <01P83PLDKT58000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20140522105930.779E218000D@rfc-editor.org> <01P83PLDKT58000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/c_3cR9rVCnDLBEvEQ2ew5oVMTGM
Cc: yam@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, barryleiba@computer.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6409 (3995)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:37:27 -0000


--On Thursday, 22 May, 2014 07:17 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

> This looks correct to me, although it's right at the edge of
> what's acceptable in an errata.

Yeah.  Reluctantly concur.  I am not aware of any impulses
toward updating 6409 and do not believe this report changes that.

    john


>> 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 <dot@dotat.at>
> 
>> 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.  However this
>>    requirement was dropped 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
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> yam mailing list
>> yam@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam