ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-smtp] [IANA #823478] Protocol Action: 'SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes' to Proposed Standard (draft-klensin-smtp-521code-07.txt)

2015-05-18 15:15:55
Hi John, 

Per Chris, we've added your name to the "Submitter" field for X.1.10 and X.3.2:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes

Thanks for your help and your patience. I'll send this along to the RFC Editor.

Amanda

On Sat May 16 06:29:10 2015, barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org wrote:
This sounds most reasonable to me.  Thanks, Chris.

b

On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Chris Newman 
<chris(_dot_)newman(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com> wrote:

The standards track information we have on the "Submitter" field is what's
in
RFC 5248:

"The identity of the submitter, usually the document author."

When a registration is revised, that does not change the fact there was a
previous submitter. So I believe adding the new submitter is the correct
interpretation because it provides both the most information and is most
likely
to include at least one useful name.

                - Chris

--On May 15, 2015 18:25:23 -0400 John C Klensin 
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com
<javascript:;>> wrote:

Amanda,

I'm adding Heather to the distribution for this because while
the RFC Editor situations and the IANA ones are different (part
of my point below), it interacts with another recent discussion
or two.

I might be the wrong person to ask because I tend to reason
about these things forward from the IANA policies of 20 or 30
years ago rather than backward from more recent decisions.
With that caveat, I believe that most of your "submitter" fields
are really "best contact if more information is needed or other
issues arise".  On that basis and using the RFC 5248 registries
and the discovery of "immanent" in the last 48 hours as an
example, continuing to list Greg for any of those codes may be
correct (because he was the lead author/editor of the document
that defined them) but it is silly (because he has, AFAICT,
dropped out and lost interest).

In that regard, RFC authorship is used, much as some of us wish
otherwise, to give credit.  We also use it as contact
information if, for example, proposed errata appear and that
purpose is often contradictory to the "credit" one after a few
years have passed. For standards track materials, we also insist
that the IESG be in the errata loop because it would not be
sensible to allow the interpretations of an author/editor to
formally change the interpretation of a standard.  I think you
should be thinking about "submitter" in much the same way: make
up whatever theories you like about what to put there as long as
it is consistent (I can make a good case for "first to touch",
"last to touch", or "first or last to touch whom we still know
how to find and get to respond") but it seems to me that, if you
have a designated expert who have been delegated by the IESG and
the community to review changes, that is really the important
contact information to list and that "submitter" is largely
information for him or her.

best,
    john


--On Friday, May 15, 2015 22:01 +0000 Amanda Baber via RT
<drafts-approval-comment(_at_)iana(_dot_)org <javascript:;>> wrote:

John, Tony, Chris, and Barry,

John and Tony, this is a question for you as authors of RFC
5248, and also for Chris, as the IESG-designated expert for
the RFC 5248 registries. (I overlooked earlier this week this
when I was initially making the edits requested by
draft-klensin-smtp-521code-07.)

When we're modifying a Class Sub-Code, Status Sub-Code, or
Enumerated Status Code entry, should we add the
author's/authors' name(s) to the "Submitter" field? See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes for
the current registry.

Chris, can you send us the decision? IANA can't determine
consensus.

John, I apologize for missing this.

thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Senior Specialist
ICANN















_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp