Subject: OBJECTION: Last Call: Message Submission to Proposed Standard

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:37:49 -0500

> I object to this being put forward as a proposed standard. My
> understanding
> after the last round of discussions on the IETF list was that the
> IETF-Submit document was to be advanced as a BCP, making no protocol
> changes
> to SMTP and documenting the use of SMTP as a submission protocol.
> 
> Before I restate the arguments made previously, can someone explain why is
> this now being advanced as a Proposed Standard?  I have seen no discussion
> on the IETF-Submit mailing list (at least not in the archives) hosted by
> IMC
> nor the IETF list explaining why this change was made.
> 
> Greg V.
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	The IESG[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> > Reply To: 	[email-masked]
> > Sent: 	Tuesday, September 15, 1998 6:03 AM
> > To: 	@ietf.org; @ietf.org
> > Subject: 	Last Call: Message Submission to Proposed Standard
> > 
> > 
> > The IESG has received a request to consider Message Submission
> > <draft-gellens-submit-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard.  This has been
> > reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group.
> > 
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> > [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by September 29, 1998.
> > 
> > Files can be obtained via
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gellens-submit-12.txt
> > 
> > 
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:20:22 -0700

>> to SMTP and documenting the use of SMTP as a submission protocol.

Actually, the minutes of the mailrev BOF say that there was disagreement
about what status this should have. I believe that Patrik Fältström was
watching the consensus so that he could decide if this was a proposed
standard, BCP, or Experimental.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:55:36 +0800

>> this now being advanced as a Proposed Standard?  I have seen no discussion

My own thought on the reason:  In effect, a BCP defines a usage profile.  A
standards track work defines a protocol.  Even something as small as a port
number difference formally defines a new protocol, since it is an essential
component for "rendez-vous" between two processes.  In other words, it is
not just a difference in how a protocol is used, but in fact defines a new
protocol.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1(408)246 8253
<mailto:[email-masked]>                        675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                         Tel: +60(19)3299 445
                                              Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Fax: +1(408)246 8253                     Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA