Re: [yam] Last Call: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard
Hi Mykyta, At 08:14 18-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: Neither RFC 2476 nor RFC 4409 asked IANA to make changes according to the contents of these tables; but this draft does. 4409 and its predecessor just mentioned which are eligible for use with submission. I'll discuss this matter with the document editors at the end of the Last Call. The working group will obviously be consulted about the matter. I'll copy the message to you. As a personal comment, it would be a bad idea for me to raise this as a serious concern. The document editors would yell at me; the working group would petition the Area Director to fire me. :-) In the IETF, everyone will tell that you have the right to view this as a serious concern. What they won't tell you is that it is also a way to squander your goodwill. Regards, S. Moonesamy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [yam] Last Call: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard
18.08.2011 10:06, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
At 09:21 17-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
IANA commented that it should be clear that the registry refers to
SMTP Service
Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but the
registry there
From the write-up:
The entry in the SMTP Service Extensions registry for RFC 4409 should
be updated to reference this document. The reference for Submit (RFC
2476) should be updated to point to this document. The registry should
be updated to reflect the changed and new entries in Section 7.
the registry in the above should be read as the SMTP Service
Extensions registry.
seems to have other format compared to Table 1:
+--+--+---+-+
| Keyword | Name | Submissio |
Reference |
| | | n
| |
please compare with
Keywords Description
ReferenceNote
So how is this table going to be incorporated in the aforementioned
registry?
The following extract is from Section 7.1 of RFC 2476:
RFC Name Submission Reference
--- -- --
2197 Pipelining SHOULD[PIPELINING]
2034 Error CodesSHOULD[CODES-EXTENSION]
1985 ETRN MUST NOT [ETRN]
This is from Section 7.1 of RFC 4409:
KeywordNameSubmission Reference
-- -- --
PIPELINING PipeliningSHOULD[PIPELINING]
ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES Enhanced Status Codes SHOULD[CODES-EXTENSION]
ETRN Extended Turn MUST NOT [ETRN]
And finally from Section 7.1 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
| Keyword | Name | Submissio | Reference |
| | | n | |
+--+--+---+-+
| PIPELINING | Pipelining | SHOULD | [PIPELINING]|
| ENHANCEDSTATUSCO | Enhanced Status | SHOULD | [CODES-EXTENSIO |
| DES | Codes| | N] |
| ETRN | Extended Turn| MUST NOT | [ETRN] |
The table has been in two previous RFCs. It was not a problem then.
Neither RFC 2476 nor RFC 4409 asked IANA to make changes according to
the contents of these tables; but this draft does. 4409 and its
predecessor just mentioned which are eligible for use with submission.
Mykyta
It should not be a problem now. Section 10 of the draft mentions how
the table is going to be incorporated. The document editors will
follow up on this editorial matter.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [yam] Last Call: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard
Hi Mykyta,
At 09:21 17-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
IANA commented that it should be clear that the registry refers to
SMTP Service
Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but
the registry there
From the write-up:
The entry in the SMTP Service Extensions registry for RFC 4409 should
be updated to reference this document. The reference for Submit (RFC
2476) should be updated to point to this document. The registry
should be updated to reflect the changed and new entries in Section 7.
the registry in the above should be read as the SMTP Service
Extensions registry.
seems to have other format compared to Table 1:
+--+--+---+-+
| Keyword | Name | Submissio | Reference |
| | | n | |
please compare with
Keywords Description ReferenceNote
So how is this table going to be incorporated in the aforementioned registry?
The following extract is from Section 7.1 of RFC 2476:
RFC Name Submission Reference
--- -- --
2197 Pipelining SHOULD[PIPELINING]
2034 Error CodesSHOULD[CODES-EXTENSION]
1985 ETRN MUST NOT [ETRN]
This is from Section 7.1 of RFC 4409:
KeywordNameSubmission Reference
-- -- --
PIPELINING PipeliningSHOULD[PIPELINING]
ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES Enhanced Status Codes SHOULD[CODES-EXTENSION]
ETRN Extended Turn MUST NOT [ETRN]
And finally from Section 7.1 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
| Keyword | Name | Submissio | Reference |
| | | n | |
+--+--+---+-+
| PIPELINING | Pipelining | SHOULD | [PIPELINING]|
| ENHANCEDSTATUSCO | Enhanced Status | SHOULD | [CODES-EXTENSIO |
| DES | Codes| | N] |
| ETRN | Extended Turn| MUST NOT | [ETRN] |
The table has been in two previous RFCs. It was not a problem
then. It should not be a problem now. Section 10 of the draft
mentions how the table is going to be incorporated. The document
editors will follow up on this editorial matter.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [yam] Last Call: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard
My 2 pence: I did finally manage to read the document and I support its publication. The only minor comment: The table in Table 1 has been corrected (reference for NO-SOLICITING) and extended (ATRN, DELIVERBY, CONPEM, and CONNEG). The registry should be updated to reflect the changed and new entries. Entries in the registry that do not appear in the table above are correct and should not be altered. IANA commented that it should be clear that the registry refers to SMTP Service Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but the registry there seems to have other format compared to Table 1: +--+--+---+-+ | Keyword | Name | Submissio | Reference | | | | n | | please compare with Keywords Description ReferenceNote So how is this table going to be incorporated in the aforementioned registry? thinking off-topic=yesThere is the equivalence of English collocation two pence in Russian and Ukrainian, that are pjat' kopeek and pjat' kopijok, respectively, and are translated as five kopecks. One kopeck is 1/100 of ruble or hryvnia; one penny is 1/100 of pound; respectively one penny is nearly 13 Ukrainian kopecks and nearly 50 Russian kopecks. So, when saying this in Ukrainian or Russian, I actually make a contribution which less that one said in English :-)./thinking Mykyta Yevstifeyev 11.08.2011 16:37, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to consider the following document: - 'Message Submission for Mail' draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt as a Full Standard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
