Hi John,
On 3/6/2020 11:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
A placeholder for whether we need to review some of all of the
timeouts has been added to the working copy of 5321bis-03. As
with all of the other Appendix G entries for which there is not
already text in the I-D (text that was inserted either as an
obvious fix or after extended discussion on this list), I am
taking no position about what, if anything, should be done: I'm
just keeping a list. One implication of that is that, if anyone
is going to suggest something that they don't think belongs on
the list... well, either say that or don't suggest it.
You have much in Appendix G. All appears to be legit issue to review.
Thanks for the addition of my recent comments. The only thing that
stood out and can't get it out of my mind, is the change to the
Acknowledgments. I personally don't feel good about it. But as part of
my stress reduction therapy, I just deleted a paragraph describing my
feeling about that change. I will just say, it has served as a "small
badge" of honor to be recognized as a long time participant and
implementor of SMTP for a number of decades.
Question for this list: I have not planned on posting -03 until
we have a WG. It differs from the current draft on the servers
(-02) only in that Appendix G has been expanded a bit, most
recently with the "1yz" and timeout topics. If anyone thinks
having it posted before IETF 107 would be helpful, e.g., to
facilitate any informal conversations that might occur then,
please say so and say so soon.
+1 I think I-D -03 should be submitted before IETF 107 for the reasons
you stated.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp