--On Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:55 PM +0200 Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/12/2010 3:09 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Hi, >> section 2.1 of the submission spec defines the three MSA, >> MTA, MUA acronyms. These definitions are often expanded for >> explaining the corresponding concepts to end users, e.g. on >> Wikipedia. IME, there is still confusion. For example, users >> tend to think that an MSA or an MTA may be included in a MUA; >> I'm not sure why. >> >> For example, I would change > > > With some regularity, the community suffers from redundant, > vague and/or inconsistent definitions and even specifications, > such as between the Internet Mail Format document and the SMTP > document. This is especially true with respect to the use of > common terms. > > So since you have raised the issue, I'll ask why these terms > are not, instead, defined as citations to RFC 5598? >... Procedurally, a normative reference from a Full Standard to a somewhat-controversial Informational document, controversial because it represented the views of one segment of the community but not another? I think that, at best, that would be an invitation to more time-consuming controversy. For the record, I would favor a standards-track document that provided a standardized vocabulary/ glossary for Internet email terminology and that everything, including a hypothetical 5598bis, referred to. But it seems to me that 5598 is not appropriate, precisely because it is a retrospective architectural description and not a vocabulary. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
