[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command"

2007-04-22 13:06:04

(I've reordered the comments a bit for clarity)

--On Sunday, 22 April, 2007 20:54 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:

Is this worth fixing?

Yes.  We need it to convert all now still pseudo-ABNF lines
 MAIL FROM:<reverse-path> [SP <mail-parameters> ] <CRLF>

Separate problem.  See separate note.

There are 302 occurences of "command" in 286 lines (my editor
says), from that POV explaining what it is is kind of

But there are also 15 ocurences of "verb", that's less obvious.
Please insert a new section above the "reply" part (now

Seems sensible.  Text specified below has been (very
tentatively) incorporated into -03 with some small
modifications.  Comments and additional suggestions welcome.

a "yes" answer accompanied by suggested text will weigh more
heavily on the editor than a "yes" answer without text

<section title="Commands and verbs"><t>
 After an initial greeting from the server, a special case of
 a reply discussed later, clients send either commands or when
 permitted a mail object.  The server sends a reply for each
 command.  All commands begin with what's known as "verb", 
 followed by additional arguments as needed for the command
 in question.
 The allowed commands depend on the state of the conversation.
 The allowed replies depend on the state and the command.
<!-- insert historical telnet/ftp note about this style ? -->

Unrelated, for some extremely important text see also

See separate note... coming soon.