[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pseudo LAST CALL - draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt

2005-03-30 02:55:11

No sorry I disagree i think this draft is not ready yet 

I think the following discussion points are still open:

Most importand open discussion points:
1 You havn't included nor refuted the  MRA (message retrieval agent) solution 
to the Ms-Ms dichotomy (but I agree my text needs polishing and extension for 
example ODMR and SMTP/etrn ect. are not mentioned)
I will post a new text later this week 

2 The discussion if MUA's are part of the MailHandling system is still open. Do 
we need the seperate identities "internet mailsystem" and "(internet) 
mailhandling system",if the only difference seems to be that ONLY MUA's are 
part of the "internet mail system" but not of the "(internet) mailhandling 

3 The administrative units is should still be in development.
  (Glad to know that you had other ideas than i mentioned in my last email but 
i think this has nothing to do with the architecture of the mailservice, it is 
mora about the internet layer, and to create tussle space as far as i can see.)
Maybe some sentences that AU should not block any email at their border is 
enough about this.

4 The problem how real life and entities in other RFC's relate to entities in 
this draft. This is now even more the case now this draft will enter the 
standard track. Otherwise this draft will generate more confusion than it can 
ever eradicate. 

Smaller points:
5 SMTP bounces (the SMTP error codes and otherways to come to a DNS) 
  (the draft does not say anything about it)
  And I think there a section about it is very helpful

6 Messages as seperate from services
  (better in seperate sections)

7 DNS MX description 

8 Messgage tracking (is now RFC)

Further see my emails:

Bruce Lilly s emails:

And other emails on the mailinglist

A small point not mentioned earlier:

The reference for Dns messages is wrong RFC3461 is about the SMTP DNS 
extension, the DNS message MIME is described in RFC3464 (with in his turn 
builds on RFC3642)

A point about SIEVE

I think that sieve should stay in the draft becaurse of the Sieve MIME 
extension (see RFC3028 section 7)  Sieve itself is on of the many, many ways to 
filter spam, what makes it special is that it is RFC and it has its own MIME 
extension. But I am open for discussion on this point.  (this is also why i 
mentioned the sieve message and not the sieve messagefiltering itself)

PS If you really want to use version 04 of the draft as RFC then please remove 
my name from the list of reviewers. 
(I can not agree with the present version)

PS 2
There seems to be something wrong with your mailhandling system, emails send to 
you get bounced back. (To your account)

Greetings willemien


I've submitted draft-crocker-email-arch-04.txt as the latest revision to the
Internet Mail Architecture document. 

Since the changes are relatively small, I'm going to ask folks to treat this
as a Last Call on the document. 

In a couple of weeks, I'll ask the IESG to consider the document for Proposed 

Please consider doing a review on the document, with that goal in mind.

Until the draft is issued through the Internet Drafts process, it can be
accessed at:



 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 dcrocker a t ...

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