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 4.5.3.2.6 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.
d/