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

Chris Newman wrote:
[...]

> This approach does not alter:
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis-09.txt>
> which is in the RFC editor queue.
BTW, this is RFC 4954 now.

> 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?
Speaking as an implementor, I think this would be a really good idea.