[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

2011-11-20 13:20:36

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Bill 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 1:06 AM
To: SMTP Discussion
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

While I would *encourage* an MTA to add this sub-field I have to agree
with Hector that it does not qualify for SHOULD. Other than that, the
paragraph satisfies my concerns about the meaning of the sub-field.

This document doesn't say that it updates RFC5321 or RFC5322.  It's a 
standalone document.  Thus, the SHOULD here only applies to MTAs that decide to 

Put another way, you can't claim compliance with this document unless you apply 
the SHOULD, but extant implementations are otherwise completely unaffected.