[yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 February 2010 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D0528C1E5 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:32:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.561
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GAUD8l8ZhKhV for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DA228C1C6 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BIXfSe019706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:33:46 -0800
Message-ID: <4B744D80.80502@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:33:36 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: yam@ietf.org
References: <20100120224502.6BDD13A6A2D@core3.amsl.com> <4B5D6AA2.2080105@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <4B5D6AA2.2080105@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10381/Thu Feb 11 10:07:47 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 18:32:32 -0000


(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.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking