Re: [yam] Issue #10: RFC 5321 3.9: add tiny subsection

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alessandro,
At 08:59 06-12-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>Yes, it would. However, it implies no protocol changes. In addition, 
>it would be a really tiny subsection.

It's easier to compare the various iterations of the specification if 
you have, for example:

RFC 2821 - 3.10 Mailing Lists and Aliases

RFC 5321 - 3.9.  Mailing Lists and Aliases

Section 3.4 is titled "Forwarding for Address Correction or 
Updating".  The tiny change you suggested might end up causing confusion.

>I agree that "Backup MX" is a poor title, and I apologize for having 
>transferred it as-is from my notes to this list. Its most notable 
>defect is that it does not include smart hosts nor other servers 
>along the outgoing path. I'd amend the tentatively proposed titles to be
>
>   Forwarding
>     Relaying   <-- "Backup MX" was here
>     Aliases
>     Mailing lists
>
>The relationship among these server's activities may now be clearer.

Quoting Section 3.4:

   "Forwarding support is most often required to consolidate and simplify
    addresses within, or relative to, some enterprise and less frequently
    to establish addresses to link a person's prior address with a
    current one."

What does "Forwarding" have to do with mailing lists?  What is the 
relationship between "Forwarding" and Relaying?

Aliases and mailing lists are about address expansion.  That's also 
the point of Section 3.9.

>The subsection would be tiny because relaying is already explained 
>in Section 3.6. It should just say that the envelope addresses are 
>left intact. Since envelope addresses are the point of Section 3.9, 
>such a simple observation would make it complete in this respect.

I am not convinced that the group would be convinced with the tiny 
argument. :-)  Even if it implies no protocol changes, you still have 
to ensure that the text is in line with what is being said in other sections.

Regards,
-sm