ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [yam] Last Call: <draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

2011-08-18 10:35:38
Hi Mykyta,
At 09:21 17-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
IANA commented that it should be clear that "the registry" refers to SMTP Service Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but the registry there

From the write-up:

The entry in the SMTP Service Extensions registry for RFC 4409 should be updated to reference this document. The reference for Submit (RFC 2476) should be updated to point to this document. The registry should be updated to reflect the changed and new entries in Section 7.

"the registry" in the above should be read as "the SMTP Service Extensions registry".

seems to have other format compared to Table 1:

    +------------------+------------------+-----------+-----------------+
    | Keyword          | Name             | Submissio | Reference       |
    |                  |                  | n         |                 |

please compare with

Keywords             Description                         Reference    Note

So how is this table going to be incorporated in the aforementioned registry?

The following extract is from Section 7.1 of RFC 2476:

   RFC   Name             Submission  Reference
   ----  ---------------  ----------  ------------------
   2197  Pipelining         SHOULD    [PIPELINING]
   2034  Error Codes        SHOULD    [CODES-EXTENSION]
   1985  ETRN              MUST NOT   [ETRN]

This is from Section 7.1 of RFC 4409:

Keyword        Name                        Submission  Reference
----------     --------------------------  ----------  ----------------
PIPELINING     Pipelining                    SHOULD    [PIPELINING]
ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES  Enhanced Status Codes   SHOULD    [CODES-EXTENSION]
ETRN           Extended Turn                 MUST NOT  [ETRN]

And finally from Section 7.1 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:


   | Keyword          | Name             | Submissio | Reference       |
   |                  |                  | n         |                 |
   +------------------+------------------+-----------+-----------------+
   | PIPELINING       | Pipelining       |   SHOULD  | [PIPELINING]    |
   | ENHANCEDSTATUSCO | Enhanced Status  |   SHOULD  | [CODES-EXTENSIO |
   | DES              | Codes            |           | N]              |
   | ETRN             | Extended Turn    |  MUST NOT | [ETRN]          |

The table has been in two previous RFCs. It was not a problem then. It should not be a problem now. Section 10 of the draft mentions how the table is going to be incorporated. The document editors will follow up on this editorial matter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf