ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 4: Client actions on receipt of 4yz and 5yz codes

2007-04-03 18:19:56

Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
In RFC 2821bis-01, Section 4.2.1 (Reply Code Severities and Theory), in
the description of the generic 4yz category, described the desired
action in terms of what the client "is encouraged to" do.  I was
persuaded in an off-list exchange that this can reasonably be changed to
"SHOULD" and -01 reflects that change.   For 5yz, there was a similar
construction that indicates that the client "is discouraged from"
repeating the request.  I was less confident about changing that to
"SHOULD NOT", so the "is discouraged" text remains in -01.

Question: Should the 5yz description  be changed to use "SHOULD NOT".  
If not, is "SHOULD" in the 4yz description reasonable?

<snip>

For 4yz, this does not show any consensus to change from SHOULD.

For 5yz, there is a trend to use SHOULD NOT instead of "is discouraged",
but the numbers are too low to really call a consensus yet.

   I'd like to endorse that course of action. We can argue whether some
other wording is more technically accurate; but matching a SHOULD against
a SHOULD NOT is the easiest to read and technically correct. (Anybody
who can't figure out a few cases where it's time to stop beating the
dead horse, or the problem "has been fixed" needs to be reading a quite
different document!)

--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>

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