ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

2002-07-02 18:49:18

Keith,

At 09:14 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
        1. do the necessary protocol fixes to make it generally
           applicable for email

Given that we DID make this generally applicable for email, someone still needs to list the way(s) the current specifications is deficient in that regard. What capabilities or scenarios need to be support that cannot be with the current specification?


        2. make clear that it has only limited applicability
           for smtp-to-fax gateways,

Perhaps you missed the portion of my response that pointed out that it is not limited to that use and, in fact, that is not even its primary intended use. If there is something in the specification that indicates otherwise, please point it out.


           same capabilities, and where relaying and forwarding
           were specifically disallowed.

There is a difference between being optimized for single-user and/or single-hop scenarios, versus prohibiting multi-user and/or multi-hop scenarios. As nearly as I can tell, you are missing that difference.


           however if pursuing this path it would still be necessary to
           leave room for VOICENEG or MIMENEG or whatever,

If you would supply some sort of functional description for these, it might be possible to understand how the current specifications fails to satisfy them. I have no idea what you are intending, and therefore cannot even guess at the deficiencies you are implying.


- Also, unless the client is acting directly on behalf of the
recipient (which is not required by the draft)

Please specify what you mean by "acting directly on behalf of the recipient" and how the current specification fails to provide the necessary technical specification.

If the specification contained whatever language about "acting directly on behalf" you are seeking, how would it change the normative technical specification?


 the client
is being asked to make a convert-or-fail decision without
any reasonable (sender-supplied or standardized) criteria as
to what kinds of conversions are acceptable.

This seems like another major omission in the current spec.

You again seem to be missing the fact that that "omission" predates CONNEG and has been part of Internet mail for 8 years.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>