[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text

2007-04-11 11:04:18

John C Klensin wrote:

Proposed text:

                The command has been accepted, but the requested action
                is being held in abeyance, pending confirmation of the
                information in this reply.  The SMTP client should send
                another command specifying whether to continue or abort
                the action.  Note: This specification does not define
                any commands that allow this type of reply, nor is there
                a continuation command for use with it.   Such commands,
                or modifications to the behavior of existing commands,
                and semantics for these codes could be specified using
                the extension mechanism.

John, for the sake of the group progress, if we are talking about non-continuation lines only, then I'm going to vote "Fine", +1.

But IMV, it still has the implied semantic argument that it CANNOT be used without an extended SMTP consideration and if that is what you are seeking, then why not spell it out? "It MUST NOT used by SERVERS."

The way I proposed to structured it left it "open ended" for new designs and just laying down the idea that the current scope is undefined.

Just consider the new discoveries with SENDMAIL:

  - It doesn't care,
  - it Ignore junk lines,
  - It has built-in support for non-standard 0xx- "Informational" lines,
  - It supports the LAST REPLY LINE concept as suggested by 4.2.1

So its really a non-issue as far as running code.

Anyway, I'll leave it with your final judgment on this. I appreciated your consideration on this.