Subject: RE: [newtrk] Erata in ISDs problematic

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:28:12 -0700

> I don't. There are known, undocumented errors in 2822.  
> Procedure dictates that it should be reviewed to confirm that 
> there are at least two fully interoperable independent 
> implementations.

There are far more errors in RFC 822 and 821.

Documents are never going to be perfect, live with it. 

What I am saying is that the standard should point to the least bad
document that exists at any given time. 

> > In other words the process for revisions to documentation 
> needs to be 
> > different to the process for revisions to protocols.
> 
> You may have a point there, but you picked a poor example and 
> botched the details.

RFC 2821 did introduce an ESMTP tag, but the protocol is still SMTP and
RFC 2821 and 2822 are the best descriptions of it. Trying to claim that
the SMTP message protocol is not an integral part of SMTP is a cute
debating point but your use of it is pure sophistry.

The fact remains that the IETF continues to produce documents that
suggest that RFC 822 is both obsolete and a standard. The same is true
of 821.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:43:15 -0400

> There are far more errors in RFC 822 and 821.

Taken on their own, perhaps.  Many such errors were corrected via
subsequent RFCs, e.g. 1123.

> document that exists at any given time. 

If it's going to be called "standard" (as opposed to "proposed standard"
or "draft standard"), then it should point to the least bad document that
actually has Standard status.

Had the work that produced 2821 and 2822 been confined to consolidation
of corrigenda, it might be reasonable to have accorded them full standard
status; but 2821 and 2822 incorporate additional requirements and
restrictions, and so should be held to the prescribed process for advancement
on the standards track.  Now it's true that we would like to encourage
implementers to be aware of 2821 and 2822 for migration and for new
implementations, but it's difficult to convey that along with the caveat
that 2821 and 2822 have not yet been reviewed for independent interoperable
implementations, removal of unused features, etc. by a single word such as
"obsoletes".

As there are many extensions, a "roadmap" type document listing those
extensions, their status, etc. would be useful to implementers.  And that's
one of the roles for "ISD" suggested by the IESG.
 
> RFC 2821 did introduce an ESMTP tag, but the protocol is still SMTP

ESMTP (not a tag) was introduced by RFC 1425.

> and 

No. The Internet Message Format preceded SMTP and has been used with FTP,
UUCP, POP, IMAP, NNTP, and proprietary protocols.
 
> suggest that RFC 822 is both obsolete and a standard. The same is true

On that we're agreed.  As I said, it's difficult to convey the nuances
with the usually used terms.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html