Re: [ietf-smtp] Adding a new value to the WITH protocol type subregistry

On 7/12/2018 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Given that keywords are cheap and the namespace is effectively
> unlimited I agee that specification required makes more sense.

I'm inclined to agree.

I don't recall why the original requirement was made so stringent.  Does 
anyone else?
d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

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