ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP Reply code 1yz Positive Preliminary reply

2020-03-08 13:13:06
(top post)

Hector,

Ok.   Unless someone has a convincing reason wh7 not and
expresses it before I get around to it, -03 will be posted
before the deadline.  I-Ds are cheap and I don't need to do a
lot of work to get from the current XML to a posted version.

The note at the end of the Acknowledgments section started out
as strictly a comment about errata.  I've changed the date,
rather arbitrarily, to 1 July.   I am keeping a list although it
is currently scattered through the document and my internal
comments.  I actually have a reason for not including a specific
list at this time:  Suppose someone suggested modifying 5321bis
to require the use of DNSSEC records and validation before an MX
record could be believed.  Because I'm trying to not make
judgments, I would include that request in Appendix G even
though I can predict with great confidence that it would swiftly
be taken off the list for 5321bis when a WG reviews (or triages)
it.  I would like to discuss with the WG whether the person and
others who made similar suggestions (but were otherwise not
influential in contributing  to the document) should be included
in the acknowledgments.  If the conclusion after that WG
discussion is "no", I don't want to remove names between
versions of the I-D.  So, until there is a WG, no explicit
acknowledgments.  One that the WG does the triage and has that
discussion, you and others will be picked back up and, if the WG
so concludes, I'll copy the whole lists of those who contributed
to 2821 and 5321 into this document as well.

best,
   john


--On Sunday, 08 March, 2020 12:00 -0400 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net> wrote:

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.




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