Subject: RE: [newtrk] Erata in ISDs problematic

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:31:46 -0700

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> I'm unhappy about pointing to the present structure at 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html in particular, because it fails

> to tell you that (for example) 822 is replaced by 2822.

This is an important point, if you start by reading STD1 and follow
through for the SMTP 'standard' you arrive at RFC 822 which does not
tell you that it is obsolete.

I think that at a minimum, when a document is made obsolete by another
document, it should no longer part of the standards series.

I also think that it would be entirely reasonable for RFC 2822 to go
immediately to standards status. The real bug in the existing IETF
standards process is that it addresses the status of the documents
(which is irrelevant), not the PROTOCOL.

SMTP is a standard, RFC 822 is simply an attempt to describe it. RFC
2822 is a much better attempt to describe SMTP which is more complete
and more accurate than 822.

The RFC numbers are a real hinderance and are getting in the way. The
way every other standards organization works is that you have a protocol
version and a document version. So we have X.509v3 certificates but the
document that describes them is now in its fourth edition.

RFC 822 is really the first edition of the SMTP 1.0 specificiation
RFC 2822 is really the second edition of the SMTP 1.0 specification

The SMTP 1.0 specification has been a standard for 20++ years and RFC
2822 is the best current document that describes it.

In other words the process for revisions to documentation needs to be
different to the process for revisions to protocols.

RFC 2822 was chartered as a document revision rather than a protoco
revision, what the document does in the main is to improve the
description of the protocol and fix the most eggregious errors and
divergences that have arisen through use. It does not extend
functionality.

If RFC 822 is obsolete it cannot be a standard, that is ilogical
Captain.

.
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 14:17:56 -0400

> document, it should no longer part of the standards series.

The inconsistency in this issue was recently raised on the IETF discussion
list.

> immediately to standards status.

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.

> and more accurate than 822.

You are mistaken. SMTP is STD 10, RFC 821, Proposed RFC 2821.  RFC 2822
(previously RFCs 822, 733, 724, 680, and 561) is the Internet Message Format.
 
> 2822 is the best current document that describes it.

Ignoring your continued error re. 2822, SMTP has been nearly superseded
by ESMTP.  Note also that RFC 788 was the original SMTP specification,
which was modified to produce the significantly different RFC 821. Which
has been extended and modified umpteen times since.
  
> different to the process for revisions to protocols.

You may have a point there, but you picked a poor example and botched
the details.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html