ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] FWD: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5321 (5414)

2018-06-30 16:17:33


--On Saturday, June 30, 2018 13:20 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:

...
Now, I don't particularly care whether or not this particular
construct is allowed. What I do care about is that what's in
RFC 5321 be consistent with what's in RFC 5322.
Inconsistencies between these specifications should be avoided
whenever possible, as they can cause operational problems when
some uses a construct allowed by one but not the other.

I also note that since this change was one to align the
specifications, it cannot be claimed to simply be an editing
error that can be changed by an erratum.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the
report, if necessary.

IMO this erratum should be rejected.

I think that is the information I needed (and had long ago
forgotten).

See response to the Errata System just posted to the list.   If
anyone violently objects to that formulation and those
suggestions, say so.

thanks,
    john



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