Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-klensin-smtp-521code-00.txt

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:17:57 +0900

I thought that 521 was quite old and widely used. So can we change the 
abstract to not say that it defines a "new" code?

Regards,   Martin.

-------- Original Message --------

         Title           : SMTP 521 Reply Code
         Author          : John C Klensin
	Filename        : draft-klensin-smtp-521code-00.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2014-08-20

Abstract:
    This memo defines a new Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) reply
    code, 521.  That code may be used to indicate that an Internet host
    does not accept incoming mail.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:55:48 -0400

--On Thursday, August 21, 2014 17:17 +0900 "\"Martin J.
Dürst\"" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I thought that 521 was quite old and widely used. So can we
> change the abstract to not say that it defines a "new" code?

Yes, certainly.   Fixed in -01, which I will issue in the next
24 hours if there are no other comments.

regards,
   john

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:56:03 +0100

John

The body of the document has references [RFC5321] and [nullMX].  The
list of references goes [1] [2] [1] [2].  (It is amazing what you can do
with submission tools:-)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:55 PM

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:43:26 -0400

--On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:56 +0100 "t.petch"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John
> 
> The body of the document has references [RFC5321] and
> [nullMX].  The list of references goes [1] [2] [1] [2].  (It
> is amazing what you can do with submission tools:-)

Sigh.  See XML2RFC ticket #271
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/271).  It
is amazing what one can do with compilation tools :-(

Version -01 will be compiled with the online version.  A
preliminary version of it does not exhibit this problem.  The
only change so far is to an abstract that responds to Martin's
comments.   Additional substantive comments welcome.

thanks,
   john

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:42:06 +0100

John

"The SMTP specification [RFC5321] (referred to, along with its various
   updates, as "SMTP" below) contains a list and discussion of error
   codes.  "

Well no - error code does not appear in RFC5321, it is reply code as the
rest of this I-D uses; and yes, I think that this is a source of
potential confusion even among the target audience and needs changing.

Tom Petch

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:13:01 -0400

--On Friday, August 22, 2014 16:42 +0100 "t.petch"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John
> 
> "The SMTP specification [RFC5321] (referred to, along with its
> various    updates, as "SMTP" below) contains a list and
> discussion of error    codes.  "
> 
> Well no - error code does not appear in RFC5321, it is reply
> code as the rest of this I-D uses; and yes, I think that this
> is a source of potential confusion even among the target
> audience and needs changing.

Thanks for the careful reading.  "error code" has been changed
to "reply code" in -01.   The term "error" does appear in other
places in the document, but only in context with error status
(e.g., "any attempt to send mail here is obviously a mistake
somewhere") or a 5yz code, which 5321 does refer to as an error
status.   I'm inclined to leave those alone.  If you think they
would be better changed as well, please say so.

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:59:14 -0400

-01 has been posted, incorporating changes suggested by Tom and
Martin.

These changes are largely editorial (although significant in
that respect).  The substance of the document is unchanged.

   john

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:54:43 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:13 PM

John

I too would leave those other errors alone; it was just the combination
of 'error' and 'code' where RFC5321 s.4.2 is all about 'reply code'
which could have caused some head scratching for a punctilious but not
quite expert reader (the expert would of course know that 'error code'
never appears in any SMTP document and would have unconsciously emended
it).

Tom Petch

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:27:59 -0400

--On Saturday, 23 August, 2014 17:54 +0100 "t.petch"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > "The SMTP specification [RFC5321] (referred to, along with
>> > its various    updates, as "SMTP" below) contains a list and
>> > code as the rest of this I-D uses; and yes, I think that
>> > this is a source of potential confusion even among the
>> > target audience and needs changing.
>> 
>> to "reply code" in -01.   The term "error" does appear in
>> other places in the document, but only in context with error
>> status (e.g., "any attempt to send mail here is obviously a
>> mistake somewhere") or a 5yz code, which 5321 does refer to
>> as an error status.   I'm inclined to leave those alone.  If
>> you think they would be better changed as well, please say so.
> 
> John
> 
> I too would leave those other errors alone; it was just the
> combination of 'error' and 'code' where RFC5321 s.4.2 is all
> about 'reply code' which could have caused some head
> scratching for a punctilious but not quite expert reader (the
> expert would of course know that 'error code' never appears in
> any SMTP document and would have unconsciously emended it).

Good.  As you have probably noticed, -01 has been posted with
changes consistent with the above.

thanks,
   john