--On Sunday, 13 April, 2008 04:44 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
[submission]
If people are convinced that additional text is needed to
explain this subject
The second paragraph in chapter 2.1 ends with:
| the less-capable clients discussed above SHOULD be using
| the message submission protocol (RFC 4409 [42]) rather
| than SMTP.
IMHO that is fine. Please move RFC 4409 from "informative"
to "normative". RFC 3461 and RFC 3464 are apparently also
covered by a SHOULD and therefore "normative".
IMO, its appearance in that particular SHOULD does not make the
reference normative -- one does not need to understand RFC 4409
in order to make a competent and conforming implementation of
2821/ 2821bis. The cast that 3461 and 3464 are normative is a
little stronger but, if you read the relevant sentence, what is
it basically saying is that, if you find another standard that
is applicable to NDNs and the particular situation, then you
should use it. The standards themselves are examples, not
something needed to implement 2821bis, and hence not normative.
john