Subject: [yam] #17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:48:43 -0000

#17: Extension validity for both SMPT and Submit
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  sm+ietf@…             |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                 |   Milestone:     
Component:  rfc1652bis            |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                     |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Comments about RFC 1652bis posted by Alessandro Vesely on 25 Jan 2010

 Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and
 Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet...

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00331.html

 Follow-up by Dave Crocker posted on 11 Feb 2010

 Given that an extension like this declares its intended venue -- note
 "/SMTP/ Service Extension" I would guess that it should also declare other
 venues that it is valid for. So yeah, it might be appropriate to have it
 declare that it's for Submit, also.

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00344.html

 Follow-up by Alexey Melnikov posted on 11 Fen 2010

 Newer SMTP extensions explicitly declare themselve as suitable (or not
 suitable) for Submit. I personally don't see any issue with that.

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00345.html

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>

---

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:51:24 -0000

#17: Extension validity for both SMTP and Submit

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17#comment:1>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>

---

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:19:05 -0000

#17: Extension validity for both SMTP and Submit
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  sm+ietf@…             |        Owner:        
     Type:  defect                |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                 |    Milestone:        
Component:  rfc1652bis            |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                     |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                        |  
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by sm+ietf@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/17#comment:2>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>