Subject: [lemonade] Comments on 'Message Submission BURL Extension' <draft-ietf-lemonade-burl-01.txt>

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:39:32 -0700

In section 3.4, it is not clear if in the presence of a trust 
relationship, the Submit server includes both "imap" and 
"imap://mail.example.com", or if the second implies the first.  This 
should be clarified.  (I suspect the answer is that the server should 
include both, since the "imap" indicates support for URLAUTH, while 
the "imap://" indicates support for regular IMAP URLs).

In section 6, response 554 and 503 could conceivably be used in the 
absence of PIPELINING (if the client ignored the error responses to 
RCPT TO commands).  This is effectively the same as PIPELINING, of 
course, but it might be better to say "This response code occurs when 
BURL is used (for example, with PIPELINING) and all RCPT TOs failed" 
and similarly for 503.

Would it make sense for reference 6 to point to 
draft-gellens-submit-bis, which is in the RFC Editor's queue and will 
obsolete 2476?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs.

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