--On Saturday, June 30, 2018 13:34 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
I suspect the population size using this "feature" of SMTP is
small and if it's considered an undue burden then there might
be an argument for cutting them off.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not really comfortable with making
assumptions about usage based on the experiences of those who
happen to particpate in the IETF.
But it would break stuff known to work and be in use now.
Exactly.
Again, I think there are two questions here. The first is
whether this should be accepted as a erratum. I think the
answer to that is fairly clearly "no" (and becoming more clear).
Even if there weren't strong feelings that the current syntax
was a deliberate decision, declaring it an error in 5321 would
break the consistency between 5321 and 5322.
Yup. As I said before, my main concern is that things are in sync. Quality
issues aside, specifications not in sync lead to the sort of support calls
about "correct" behavior that end up getting product development involved, and
I'd like to avoid that.
The second is whether the rule should be changed for both specs.
I don't know the answer to that, but the way to pose the
question is with an I-D that reasons through the advantages and
disadvantages of the change and makes a suggestion. I share
both of your concerns about about assumptions and things that
are known to work, but don't feel a need to worry about it until
and unless we see such an I-D.
I certainly would not object to such a specification, although I'd say
you'd probably want to gather up a few similar items before it would
be worthwhile.
Personally, I think that there were cases where we should have
synchronized 5321 and 5322 by relying on the narrower rules of
the 821ff chain rather than those of the Header specs. However,
I was in the rough about that in DRUMS and there would be no way
to simply revisit those decisions even if we wanted to (and I
don't think anyone does).
To be fair, the obsolete syntac cleaned up a lot of stuff. In highsight this
probably should have been relegated to the obsolete side as well.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp