home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
smtpext
/
smtpext-minutes-92jul.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-17
|
5KB
|
114 lines
Editor's Note: Minutes received 8/4
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by John Klensin/MIT
Minutes of the Internet Mail Extensions Working Group (SMTPEXT)
A copy of the working draft was published as an Internet Draft
(draft-ietf-smtpext-8bittransport-05.txt) at the end of June, following
an earlier version published about a month earlier. These two versions
were of the character of ``tying up the loose ends'', since most
significant issues had been resolved by the close of the San Diego
meeting or in list discussion shortly thereafter. There was no
discussion on the list between the time that draft was announced and the
time of the Working Group meeting that would have implied protocol
changes; the limited discussion that did occur focused on explanatory
and specificity improvements to the document text.
The Working Group meeting itself consequently was brief and quite
focused, resolving the few remaining outstanding issues (about which
there had been little disagreement and substantially no discussion), and
then agreeing to recommend that IESG recommend a revised document as a
Proposed Standard.
The Working Group session also generated some informal discussions that
led to further specific language in the document and some clarified
features. A revised document version was prepared after the meeting and
made available to Working Group participants both at the IETF and on the
list, and comments on it resulted in some additional minor changes.
Specific Issues addressed and resolved included:
o Format and keywords for additional trace field information. After
discussion of interactions with MIME body parts, the conclusion was
to leave the level of detail at that specified prior to the San
Diego meeting, relying on additional MIME headers to document
per-body-part transformations. In summary, the trace information
inserted by the transport in the message headers will document that
a MIME transformation occurred and the specific changes made to
individual body parts should be documented with those body parts.
The Working Group strongly recommends that syntax, semantics, and
requirements for the per-body-part audit documentation be added to
MIME in the process of its going to draft standard.
o Some additional tracing keywords were added to permit documenting
the cases in which a transport agent or gateway performed a
conversion to make an invalid message or address form valid.
Tracing these activities may make it possible to identify and fix
some of the historically-most-difficult problems with electronic
mail.
o Agreement was reached on additional clarification of the
relationship of EHLO to commands and keywords not specified as part
of either this enhanced protocol or RFC821. In summary, ``old''
1
(RFC821-only) implementations are not expected to support EHLO at
all, nor are they retroactively bound by any of the specific
provisions of the enhanced protocol (although they are strongly
encouraged to start registering keywords). Implementations that
support the enhanced protocol and, hence, EHLO, must return
keywords for all of the non-experimental commands that they
provide, and all of those keywords must be registered. All
experimental commands must start in ``X''; no keywords will be
registered or otherwise specified that start in ``X''.
o The requirement the EHLO return a LIMIT line (permitted message
size information) was reaffirmed and explicitly documented.
A new Internet Draft was submitted during the IETF meeting and has been
published as draft-ietf-smtpext-8bittransport-06.txt. The Working Group
recommends that the content of this draft be published as an RFC with
``Proposed Standard'' status.
This concludes the present phase of the Working Group's work. Closing
out the document at this point defers action on several outline
proposals, discussed in the San Diego Minutes but never acted upon or
proposed in any detail, for future efforts as the need arises.
Attendees
Robert Austein sra@epilogue.com
Mark Baushke mdb@cisco.com
Alan Clegg abc@concert.net
James Conklin jbc@bitnic.educom.edu
Ned Freed ned@innosoft.com
Tony Genovese genovese@nersc.gov
Paul Hill pbh@mit.edu
Todd Kaehler kaehler@zk3.dec.com
Neil Katin katin@eng.sun.com
John Klensin klensin@infoods.mit.edu
Jim Knowles jknowles@trident.arc.nasa.gov
Marjo Mercado marjo@cup.hp.com
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Hank Nussbacher hank@vm.tau.ac.il
Michael Patton map@lcs.mit.edu
John Payne jop@wang.com
Bradley Rhoades bdrhoades@mmc.mmmg.com
Richard Schmalgemeier rgs@merit.edu
Jane Smith jds@jazz.concert.net
Gregory Vaudreuil gvaudre@nri.reston.va.us
John Wagner jwagner@princeton.edu
2