Subject: [lemonade] Other Comments on Profile-03

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:38:40 -0800

Requirement 4.1.1.2 seems a bit silly to me:

  4.1.1 SMTP client behavior

    2) An SMTP client wishing to use Future Message Release MUST include
       a hold-param with the MAIL command.

It might be better to either delete this, or restate it as 
descriptive ("a client wishing to use future message release does so 
by including a hold-param with the MAIL FROM command").

In 4.1.1.4, perhaps "earlier than or equal to" instead of "less than 
or equal to"?

I'm unclear as to what "wishing" means in 4.1.2 (1) through (3).  It 
may be better to delete this, and just say "supporting".  For 
4.1.2.2., I'd rather see a stronger statement: "An MSA MUST NOT 
include FUTURRELEASE in its EHLO reply on any port other than the 
submission port."

Do we need 4.1.1.7 and 4.1.1.8?  I don't see an interop requirement 
here.  If we really do need these, it might be cleaner to word these 
as "MUST reject a MAIL command which contains the xxx option 
specifying a value which exceeds the advertised max-xxxx value." 
(replacing 'xxx' with 'for' and 'until', and 'max-xxxx' with 
'max-future-release-interval' and 'max-future-release-date-time').

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
razbliuto (ros-blee-OO-toe; Russian; noun): the feeling a person
retains for someone he or she once loved.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:30:53 +0000

Randy, I thought you've sent comments on Profile (judging from the 
subject), but I see comments on Future Release.

Randall Gellens wrote:

> It might be better to either delete this, or restate it as descriptive 
> ("a client wishing to use future message release does so by including 
> a hold-param with the MAIL FROM command").

Agreed.

> include FUTURRELEASE in its EHLO reply on any port other than the 

MSA doesn't necessarily have to run on the submission port.

I would rather rephrase this sentence to say that FUTURERELEASE is not 
allowed in MTAs.

> 'max-future-release-interval' and 'max-future-release-date-time').

Agreed.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:35:09 -0800

> subject), but I see comments on Future Release.

Oops, thanks, Alexey, you're of course correct.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Yesterday it worked
Today it is not working
Windows is like that
         --Error Haiku