Re: [yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 11 February 2010 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 BD7E028C169 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 r06JnbPvRve3 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DBC28C11E for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [92.40.246.159] (92.40.246.159.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.246.159]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <S3RjOABCzo0C@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:06:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4B746330.8000502@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:06:08 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <20100120224502.6BDD13A6A2D@core3.amsl.com> <4B5D6AA2.2080105@tana.it> <4B744D80.80502@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B744D80.80502@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: yam@ietf.org
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:05:03 -0000

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Folks,

Hi Dave,

> (this concerns rfc1652bis)
>
> 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...
>
> 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.

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

> Comments?