No doubt I'm missing something obvious, but where do I see this comments
on the new datatracker?
IANA NOT OK. Comments in tracker
IANA Actions - YES
1) A question posted in the tracker and in the IANA Last Call comments.
2) Expert review is depended on a clarification to the question.
On Mon Apr 06 15:53:25 2015, iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote:
Evaluation for <draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt> can be found at
Last call to expire on: 2015-04-02 00:00 PDT
Please return the full line with your position.
Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain
Barry Leiba [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS
---- following is a DRAFT of message to be sent AFTER approval ---
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes' to Proposed
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes'
(draft-klensin-smtp-521code-05.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Barry Leiba.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
This memo defines two Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) reply
codes, 521 and 556. The 521 code was originally described in an
Experimental RFC in 1995 and is in wide use, but has not previously
been formally incorporated into SMTP. The 556 code was created for
RFC-nullMX. These codes are used to indicate that an Internet host
does not accept incoming mail at all (not just under particular
This is presented for publication as a Proposed Standard, as it adds
to RFC 5321, which is already standards track.
Review and Consensus
This document came out of discussions on both the apps discuss and
mailing lists about (1) moving RFC 1846 to the standards track, and
nullMX idea. There was wide-spread agreement on both of those efforts,
including accepting nullMX as an APPS WG document.
The decision to create this document was mostly due to administrative
that there was only one document updating RFC 5321 instead of two. The
nullMX document was then rewritten to point to this document. (The
document has been through 10 revisions since becoming an APPS WG
There is widespread implementation of both of these return codes.
Tony Hansen is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible
Area Director. This document is an individual submission.
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp mailing list