IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 21BFD1A0019 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 07:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 d3R_P5byjX9R for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539E11A0176 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P83PLF08SW002HJ8@mauve.mrochek.com> for yam@ietf.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1400768299; bh=FCyLHcqA5n5afxf2EnVwyN+jXvMPjOGpAJj20JZpUM8=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=YAVK5Gf021YSp/vOV7UhzWbvzInVJLsEBJ77SGjX+zemu0xC0xiPLi1I6+i09rHYK t9VPz8XKQgn9OACtluftRUVqZN7g8R8V07G3Ruvo/hUeCRdUImP7xQ9j9aHaIMYJoB MqF21/m0Cmv4vZK4t2pW4EHST2Srg0UO3Epq0WgY=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7ZVUWI9SW000052@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 07:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01P83PLDKT58000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 07:17:46 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 22 May 2014 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT)" <20140522105930.779E218000D@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140522105930.779E218000D@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/j4b6l6zpvPIke57n2Kz1UPKD60A
Cc: yam@ietf.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, barryleiba@computer.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.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 14:23:26 -0000

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

				Ned

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email