Date: 2005-03-05 01:50
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
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.
It is true that, by itself, the issue of client-server
negotiation is irrelevant to the disposition of the draft
under discussion. The draft, and the positioning of
submit as a separate protocol from ESMTP, purports that
an MSA can be differentiated from an MTA via the protocol,
which appears not to be the case w/o some sort of ESMTP
keyword that specifically identifies a submit server. Of
course, that claim could be dropped from the draft, but
that still leaves no way to make such a distinction and
little more than hand-waving to avoid abuse of 2821
"gateway" provisions for message munging to differentiate
an MSA from MTA.
The more serious issues regarding the proposed elevation to
Draft Standard status are:
1. whether the changes from 2476 warrant recycling at Proposed
2. whether or not the criterion for 2 independent implementations
meeting all required protocol features is satisfied.
Without commenting on the first issue, it appears that the
second is a problem at this time.
Regarding specific proposals and attracting interest, my
earlier observation that there does not appear to be a relevant
active WG applies. For that matter, that is a concern for
moving the submit protocol to Draft status and beyond; the
practice of disbanding WGs after a Proposed Standard has been
produced leaves a void regarding the necessary work to advance
along the Standards Track.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf