Is it sufficiently important to add the note that I should ask the RFC Editor to pull it back, so I can add the note and re-verify?
Barry On Friday, May 23, 2014, Randall Gellens <[email protected]> wrote: > I completely agree with John. A note on the errata is fine (since it has > already been marked as verified). > > At 2:28 PM -0400 5/23/14, John C Klensin wrote: > > Unless I'm wrong about how motivated any of us are to do a 6409 >> update to fix this, can we just note (as a comment on the >> erratum since it has gotten this far) that there is an issue >> with the text (as noted) and that it needs to be examined >> carefully in any rewrite. I agree with Randy's comments about >> clarity, but doubt that is worth spending a lot more time on now >> unless something thinks the issue is really important enough to >> justify a revision. >> >> john >> >> >> --On Friday, 23 May, 2014 08:07 -0700 Randall Gellens >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think the wording is unclear and should be improved. See >>> in-line: >>> >>> At 3:59 AM -0700 5/22/14, RFC Errata System wrote: >>> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6409, >>>> "Message Submission for Mail". >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6409&eid=3995 >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Type: Technical >>>> Reported by: Tony Finch <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Section: 8.7 >>>> >>>> Original Text >>>> ------------- >>>> NOTE: SMTP [SMTP-MTA] prohibits the use of domain name >>>> aliases in addresses and the session-opening >>>> announcement. As with other SMTP requirements, RFC 5321 >>>> effectively prohibits an MSA from forwarding such >>>> messages into the public Internet. Nonetheless, >>>> unconditionally resolving aliases could be harmful. For >>>> example, if www.example.net and ftp.example.net are both >>>> aliases for mail.example.net, rewriting them could lose >>>> useful information. >>>> >>>> >>>> Corrected Text >>>> -------------- >>>> NOTE: RFC 821 and RFC 1123 prohibited the use of domain >>>> name aliases in addresses and the session-opening >>>> announcement. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Because of this it is still common for MTAs to >>>> canonicalize domains in email addresses. >>>> >>> >>> Because of what? The prohibition on CNAMEs? >>> >>> "it is still common for MTAs to" should be worded as "some >>> MTAs" to be more factual (otherwise it raises questions of how >>> common). >>> >>> However this requirement was dropped >>>> >>> >>> What requirement was dropped? The wording should be clear. >>> >>> during the development of RFC 2821. The current rules >>>> about domain name aliases are set out in RFC 5321 section >>>> 2.3.5. >>>> >>>> Notes >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> >>>> Instructions: >>>> ------------- >>>> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, >>>> please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be >>>> verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the >>>> verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and >>>> edit the report, if necessary. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC6409 (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03) >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Title : Message Submission for Mail >>>> Publication Date : November 2011 >>>> Author(s) : R. Gellens, J. Klensin >>>> Category : INTERNET STANDARD >>>> Source : Yet Another Mail >>>> Area : Applications >>>> Stream : IETF >>>> Verifying Party : IESG >>>> >>> > > -- > Randall Gellens > Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only > -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- > Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. >
_______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
