--On Friday, 04 March, 2005 23:35 -0500 Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Fri March 4 2005 22:43, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Not only was it discussed, the draft actually specified this
scheme at one point.
The problem in a nutshell was that it required client
modifications.
Ned, if I understand your remarks correctly, you are claiming
that the scheme that I outlined requires client modification.
That is incorrect, though w/o modification, operation would be
as is currently the case (i.e. the scheme is intended to be
backward compatible) with RFC 2476 (client can't distinguish
whether server is MTA or MSA, has no control over
modifications, etc.). Could you please explain specifically
where you believe that the scheme outlined *requires* client
modification.
Bruce,
Like Ned, I think history and deployment have voted and the
community doesn't see any need for this. But suppose there is
such a need. The change you propose is either compatible with
the protocol as written or it isn't. If it isn't, then my
earlier comments apply. If it is compatible, which is what you
say above, then it has nothing to do with whether the document
should move to Draft because nothing prevents you from doing a
writeup of the specific extension(s) you propose as an I-D and
see if you can get others, especially those who implement and
deploy these sorts of things, interested in adding those
extensions as a new Proposed Standard piece of protocol to be
optionally used with Message Submission.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf