I completely agree with John. A note on the errata is fine (since it
has already been marked as verified).
At 2:28 PM -0400 5/23/14, John C Klensin wrote:
Unless I'm wrong about how motivated any of us are to do a 6409
update to fix this, can we just note (as a comment on the
erratum since it has gotten this far) that there is an issue
with the text (as noted) and that it needs to be examined
carefully in any rewrite. I agree with Randy's comments about
clarity, but doubt that is worth spending a lot more time on now
unless something thinks the issue is really important enough to
justify a revision.
john
--On Friday, 23 May, 2014 08:07 -0700 Randall Gellens
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think the wording is unclear and should be improved. See
in-line:
At 3:59 AM -0700 5/22/14, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6409,
"Message Submission for Mail".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6409&eid=3995
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Tony Finch <[email protected]>
Section: 8.7
Original Text
-------------
NOTE: SMTP [SMTP-MTA] prohibits the use of domain name
aliases in addresses and the session-opening
announcement. As with other SMTP requirements, RFC 5321
effectively prohibits an MSA from forwarding such
messages into the public Internet. Nonetheless,
unconditionally resolving aliases could be harmful. For
example, if www.example.net and ftp.example.net are both
aliases for mail.example.net, rewriting them could lose
useful information.
Corrected Text
--------------
NOTE: RFC 821 and RFC 1123 prohibited the use of domain
name aliases in addresses and the session-opening
announcement.
Because of this it is still common for MTAs to
canonicalize domains in email addresses.
Because of what? The prohibition on CNAMEs?
"it is still common for MTAs to" should be worded as "some
MTAs" to be more factual (otherwise it raises questions of how
common).
However this requirement was dropped
What requirement was dropped? The wording should be clear.
during the development of RFC 2821. The current rules
about domain name aliases are set out in RFC 5321 section
2.3.5.
Notes
-----
Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and
edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC6409 (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03)
--------------------------------------
Title : Message Submission for Mail
Publication Date : November 2011
Author(s) : R. Gellens, J. Klensin
Category : INTERNET STANDARD
Source : Yet Another Mail
Area : Applications
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
