From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:42:56 -0500
[...]
We had a similar discussion regarding SMTP extension names, and I
like the compromise we came up with - SMTP extension names can be
reserved with either a standards-track document, or an experimental
document with IESG approval. That allows extension names to be
reserved for proposals that are publicly documented and have had
a basic sanity check even if they're not deemed ready for prime time -
but if the extension proves worthy of standardization without
incompatible change, the same extension name can be used.
Ok, so Cyrus IMAP uses LMTP extensively, which uses SMTP extensions.
Our LMTP server advertises "IGNOREQUOTA". There's even an
internet-draft about it (which hasn't expired, but it will in March).
Did we do the right thing? We don't have a "standards-track document"
nor IESG approval. Currently the only client/servers that recognize
the keyword are ours. From my understanding of your previous
paragraph, if we were playing by the rules we should've never deployed
software like this.
If there was an open registry for such keywords, we would've
registered it, given a URL for a stable document (not an ID) that
explains what's going on, and maybe even said why we are or aren't
pursuing standardization.
Note that it's even more confusing: LMTP is an informational document
(it's not used over the internet) but extensions to it really consume
ESMTP extension space.
Larry