Re: New Issue: NOOP clarification

[John C Klensin]

--On Sunday, 02 December, 2007 00:25 +0100 "Peter J. Holzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>...
> This is an incompatible change in the protocol, as a client
> conforming to RFC 2821 is of course perfectly correct in
> sending the optional parameter while the server conforming to
> RFC 821 is equally correct in rejecting it. 
>...
> For some reason, this was not used for
> NOOP, but an incompatible change was made in the core protocol
> (which I admit I don't understand: What is the purpose of this
> parameter? Why was it added at all? To reflect actual usage or
> just because somebody thought it might be useful?)

My recollection is that DRUMS was trying to reflect existing
practice.  While I haven't searched the archives, the odds that
this was done by accident and without discussion are very small.

   john