On 1/2/20 1:07 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
The target documents would be:
1) Astreamlined rfc5321bis
yes. But I don't think this is the place to impose policy, including
policy about whether domain literals are permitted in EHLO/HELO. I
think this document should be targeted toward implementors of the
protocol engines, with policy a separate layer (and probably in a
separate document). That way, implementors of the protocol engines
have one clear and stable reference to work from. Policy
recommendations are less likely to be stable, as conditions will
continue to change. Putting policy recommendations in a separate
document lets those recommendations evolve without affecting the base
SMTP protocol specification.
So the SMTP protocol could permit IP address literals in EHLO/HELO as a
matter of syntax, whereas policy could restrict that further.
2) A document specifying requirements for Exterior MTAs, which
would include mandating rfc5321bis, starttls, ...
I suspect the document needs to specify requirements for relaying across
domain boundaries rather than talking about particular kinds of MTAs.
I'm not sure that there is, in practice, a clean separation between
Exterior MTAs and Interior MTAs, such that only Exterior MTAs are
involved in relaying across domain boundaries.
Keith
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp