Subject: Re: [yam] Extension spec mandating multiple venues?

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:06:53 -0800

At 10:33 11-02-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>On 1/25/2010 1:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>On 20/Jan/10 23:45, [email-masked] wrote:
>>>Title : SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport
>>
>>Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and
>>Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet...

This is being tracked as Issue # 17.  I added Dave's comment with 
it.  If you would like them to be tracked as separate issues, please 
send me an email.

>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.
>
>But I'm not positive.  I'm particularly concerned that there might 
>be a subtle issue here that I'm missing.

As an individual comment, it may be more of a legacy issue than a 
subtle issue.  Section 7 of RFC 4409 lists 8BITMIME as a SHOULD for 
Submit together with a reference to RFC 1652.  When an extension 
specification declares its intended venue, there is an IANA 
registration and the requirement level as a guidance for 
implementers.  I don't see any issue for RFC 1652bis as a person 
implementing Submit will find the declaration in RFC 4409.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy