[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was address maximum length

2019-11-25 22:26:04
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:37:41 +1100, "Bron Gondwana" said:
P.S. I tell a lie above, I have thought of another question which belongs
somewhere in a cloud with (1) and (2), which is "should these two documents be
revised as a mini-cluster, or is there a scenario in which it makes sense to
just revise one and leave the other untouched"?

If we're going to the trouble of spinning up a formal working group,
we probably *should* (non-RFC meaning :) take the time to look at both
documents, and make sure they're consistent with each other (for instance,
if we document new features/semantics for a 822-ish From: field, we
need to make sure that the 821-ish MAIL FROM: is in sync, and we may
want to add verbage to the 821-ish reply codes in explanations, etc.

We may reach a state where we've modified one document, and surprisingly
enough, the other one needs no updates. And that's OK if that's where consensus
ends up. But we should open the entire can of worms assuming that we'll
update both (I haven't checked, but I suspect that at a minimum there's
errata in both to fold in)

Attachment: pgpSRp3tXEr4l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

ietf-smtp mailing list