[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Draft to Full, versus cycling at Draft

2010-08-11 14:06:11

Hmmm, if the following were added to 4409bis somewhere, I don't think it should affect going from Draft => Full:

    X.Y Timeouts

    It has been observed that MUAs have in existing practice not been
    allowing a long time for the Submit Server to respond to
    the final <CRLF>.<CRLF>.

    Submit Server writers MUST pay close attention to the Server
    timeout specified in section 6.1 of RFC 5321, where it says:

        ... a receiver-SMTP MUST seek to minimize the time
        required to respond to the final <CRLF>.<CRLF> end of
        data indicator.

    MUAs and other Submit clients SHOULD wait at least the normal TCP/IP
    timeout lengths of time after sending the final <CRLF>.<CRLF>, if not
    the full timeout specified in section of RFC 5321.

or something along those lines.

    Tony Hansen

On 8/11/2010 12:41 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 8/11/2010 9:19 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I'm wondering if, instead of changing the 5321 guidance, there needs to be text added to 4409bis about timeouts being shorter than those normally used by SMTP.

Any useful guidance should be made wherever it is helpful. This issue is certainly in the realm of 'useful'.

My note, here, isn't about that. It's a 'process' question, meant mostly for academic consideration:

Is this the sort of change that is appropriate for going from Draft to Full?

I would have thought that it was too technical and substantive and that, at the least, the doc would have to cycle at, perhaps, Draft.

To repeat:  this is meant purely as an academic exercise.  I'm curious.