[yam] #17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit

"yam issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Thu, 11 February 2010 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
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 470E53A682A for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:47:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lsw7Z77+Lf-N for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C113A67D1 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1Nfhpz-0006kQ-58; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:48:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "yam issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: sm+ietf@elandsys.com
X-Trac-Project: yam
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:48:43 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/yam/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17
Message-ID: <058.d13c8137142378633c144f9b64eccea6@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 17
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: sm+ietf@elandsys.com, yam@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: [yam] #17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:47:28 -0000

#17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  sm+ietf@…             |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                 |   Milestone:     
Component:  rfc1652bis            |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                     |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Comments about RFC 1652bis posted by Alessandro Vesely on 25 Jan 2010

 Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and
 Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet...

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00331.html

 Follow-up by Dave Crocker posted on 11 Feb 2010

 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.

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00344.html

 Follow-up by Alexey Melnikov posted on 11 Fen 2010

 Newer SMTP extensions explicitly declare themselve as suitable (or not
 suitable) for Submit. I personally don't see any issue with that.

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00345.html

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>