Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to Draft Standard (1))

2007-12-11 Thread Ned Freed
--On 10. desember 2007 15:22 -0800 Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2. The mailing lists described in 2821 are very simple redistribution >> lists, as opposed to the "fairly sophisticated forums for group >> communication" [2919] described in these documents. For simple >> aliasing an

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to Draft Standard (1)

2007-12-11 Thread Pete Resnick
Ned said most of what I wanted to, but a couple of little points: On 12/11/07 at 1:19 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote: The spec. could note that there are mutilating^Wcomplex lists violating the MUST. It could also say SHOULD, an RFC on standards track might be a good excuse to violate this S

Re: Revising full standards

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Crocker
Iain Calder wrote: their descendants. For example, suppose a completely different protocol called IEP (Internet Email Protocol) arises in the future and, due to its vastly superior characteristics, becomes the dominant mail transport system. SMTP would then become historic and IEP would need

Re: Revising full standards

2007-12-11 Thread Bob Braden
*> *> I foresee another problem, however. SMTP remains the *> Internet's email protocol, after decades of use and *> extending. Yet things could have turned out differently. *> Protocols *can* get pushed aside by challengers that aren't *> their descendants. For example, suppose a

Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to Draft Standard (1))

2007-12-11 Thread Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--On 10. desember 2007 15:22 -0800 Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. The mailing lists described in 2821 are very simple redistribution lists, as opposed to the "fairly sophisticated forums for group communication" [2919] described in these documents. For simple aliasing and redistributi

Re: Revising full standards

2007-12-11 Thread Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--On 11. desember 2007 06:22 -0500 Iain Calder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that, for implementors and adopters alike, a single, absolute definition is too simplistic a view to be meaningful in today's world. Merely renaming the STD series won't solve the problem of deciding when/if the

Re: Revising full standards

2007-12-11 Thread Iain Calder
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > On a lexical level I would suggest that the default mnemonic be > IETF-[-]- where the specifier is optional. I expect specialists will continue to prefer the raw RFC numbers and I doubt that others (including many decision makers) care about working group acronyms.