[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-02.txt]

2007-07-24 06:24:05

The conflicting uses of X.7.8 are in response to two different SMTP commands. As a result, there is no interoperability problem in practice. The "auth invalid" only occurs in response to the "AUTH" command, and the "trust relationship required" only occurs in response to the "BURL" command.

As there is no interoperability problem to fix, the goals are to document the meaning clearly and minimize changes to deployed code. We have to create 1 new code to make the meaning clear, but we don't have to create 2 codes and shouldn't if we want to minimize changes in deployed code. As X.7.8 appears to have more AUTH deployment than BURL deployment, I suggest deleting X.7.15 from this draft and changing X.7.8 and X.7.14 to say:

  X.7.8 Authentication credentials invalid
     Authentication failed due to invalid or insufficient
     authentication credentials.  When this code is seen in response to the
     Submit BURL command [RFC4468], it is synonymous with code X.7.14.
     Defined by RFC XXXX.  Registered by IESG.

  X.7.14 Trust relationship required
     The submission server requires a configured trust relationship
     with a third-party server in order to access the message content.
     This value replaces the prior use of X.7.8 for this error
     condition, thereby updating [RFC4468].
     Defined by RFC XXXX.  Registered by IESG.

This approach does not alter:
which is in the RFC editor queue.

One other question: do we want to list one or more non-extended SMTP codes that are typically used with an extended code in the registry?

               - Chris