ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Issue list

2007-04-27 13:28:39



--On Friday, 27 April, 2007 20:30 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:

Hector Santos wrote:

http://www.isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/rfc281bis-status.htm

Thanks, my browser was still not happy, I simplified the Excel
output, see below.

I miss two articles about other issues posted here:

Kari  (2007-04-20): "for" clause on Received: header field 
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/5708

As far as Pete and I are concerned, this has been resolved by
further stripping the Received line syntax from 2822.  If you
want useful syntax for Received headers, you look at 2821[bis],
which is authoritative.  Anything beyond the most basic lexical
syntax that still appears in 2822bis is an error.
  
Frank (2007-04-23): General Address Literal
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/5810

This note is a confusion of issues.  If you want an issue number
assigned to one or more of the issues in it, post separate notes
with meaningful subject lines.  

Beyond that, a decision on this is up to Tony, but I believe
that a request to _change_ the fundamental syntax used to
express different versions of IP and the associated literals is
out of scope.  I believe that we can make syntax changes at this
point to clarify or correct what is there, but not to invent new
(to 2821/2822) approaches.

Of course, if interoperability reports (which are not part of
_my_ issue list) indicate that the syntax for IPv6 literals is
not supported by at least two independent implementations, that
syntax can be removed.  But that would give us no standard
support for IPv6 literals at all, not an opportunity to invent a
new syntax at this time.  Just IMO, of course.

     john