Hi Benjamin, On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:24:17AM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > A couple of comments on some of your DISCUSS points: > > > > > On 21 Feb 2019, at 04:55, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
(snip) > > > The "must chain forward to final delivery" property for the REQUIRETLS > > > option seems to present some incremental deployment difficulties, in that > > > it will be nigh-impossible to successfully deliver such a message until > > > there is fairly significant deployment coverage. E.g., if any major email > > > hosting provider does not implement, then it will forever remain a niche > > > technology. What indication to we have that this technology can succeed > > > as > > > specified? > > > > There are several SMTP extensions on Standards Track that have similar > > properties. IETF generally didn't require "prove that it gets deployed" for > > them. There are already some implementations (as per the write-up). > > It's just surprising to see a "your message won't get sent if the whole > path doesn't support this extension" behavior; this seems to require a > critical mass of deployment before any major usage is possible. > I don't object per se to specifying things like this, but it does make one > wonder whether we should spend so much effort on things that may be of > little use in practice. There is a bit of Catch-22 here: we need this in an RFC to see if we want widespread use. > > > If we anticipate it becoming a part of the de facto core, > > > mandatory, SMTP feature set, should we not indicate that by an Updates: > > > relationship? > > > > We haven't done this in the past even for widely deployed SMTP extensions. > > This is not a reason not to do this in the future, but I think starting > > with this extension would cause more confusion. > > Perhaps this could be discussed on the call (which, sadly, I don't expect > ot be on). I recognize that it would be weird to start a precedent here, > and of course if the intention is not that this extension become de facto > part of core SMTP then my concern disappears. I can add this topic to the informal telechat next week. Best Regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
