Subject: [yam] #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:16:46 -0000

#7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  sm+ietf@…                    |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:     
Component:  5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation  |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                            |    Keywords:     
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Comment about RFC 5321 posted by Alessandro Vesely on 12 Nov 2009

 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions.
 It should say that "Future SMTP extensions SHOULD explicitly specify if
 they are valid on the Submission port." [RFC 4409, Sect. 7]

 Rationale: not 100% sure, because while RFC 4409 says that, it doesn't
 formally update RFC 2821 (nor RFC 2476 updated RFC 1869.)

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00164.html

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/7>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:53:55 +0100

> #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions
This comes from RFC 2476, all of 11 years ago. We were a good deal less 
careful about UPDATES clauses then than we are now. (Sometimes I wonder 
if that's an improvement or the opposite.)

I think it's a good idea to include some version of that sentence.

                            Harald