--On Thursday, 29 March, 2007 11:51 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:
At 05:34 29-03-2007, John C Klensin wrote:
We all understand that anything resembling a syntax error in
the EHLO argument (i.e., not meeting the syntax requirements
for a domain name) is an error that lies completely outside
the existing restriction on rejection, don't we?
Yes, as the text is clearer in the draft with the reference to
Section 7.8.
Does that need to be more explicit?
No.
In Section 4.1.4:
"The SMTP client MUST, if possible, ensure that the domain
parameter to the EHLO command
is a valid principal host name (not a CNAME or MX name)
for its host."
you use "valid principal host name". I suggest that it be
changed to:
"The SMTP client MUST, if possible, ensure that the domain
parameter to the EHLO command
is a primary host name (a domain name that resolves to an A
RR) for its host."
That's the same as what is specified in Section 2.3.5 for the
EHLO command.
Can't be an "A RR", given IPv6, but this seems otherwise to be
an improvement. That is, of course, an error in 2.3.5, which
I'll correct.
Moreover, the redundancy (which was obviously wrong the first
time around) does not seem helpful So, unless anyone strongly
objects, I'm going to remove the details entirely from 4.1.4,
leaving
"The SMTP client MUST, if possible, ensure that the
domain parameter to the EHLO command is a primary host
name as specified for this command in Section 2.3.5. If
this is not possible..."
I'll see if I can think of ways to better organize this to
eliminate paging back and forth, but getting the redundancy out
seems useful in its own right.
john