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 protected] 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
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
