> Date: 2005-03-05 01:50 > From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > then it has nothing to do with whether the document > should move to Draft because nothing prevents you from doing a > writeup of the specific extension(s) you propose as an I-D and > see if you can get others, especially those who implement and > deploy these sorts of things, interested in adding those > extensions as a new Proposed Standard piece of protocol to be > optionally used with Message Submission. It is true that, by itself, the issue of client-server negotiation is irrelevant to the disposition of the draft under discussion. The draft, and the positioning of submit as a separate protocol from ESMTP, purports that an MSA can be differentiated from an MTA via the protocol, which appears not to be the case w/o some sort of ESMTP keyword that specifically identifies a submit server. Of course, that claim could be dropped from the draft, but that still leaves no way to make such a distinction and little more than hand-waving to avoid abuse of 2821 "gateway" provisions for message munging to differentiate an MSA from MTA. The more serious issues regarding the proposed elevation to Draft Standard status are: 1. whether the changes from 2476 warrant recycling at Proposed 2. whether or not the criterion for 2 independent implementations meeting all required protocol features is satisfied. Without commenting on the first issue, it appears that the second is a problem at this time. Regarding specific proposals and attracting interest, my earlier observation that there does not appear to be a relevant active WG applies. For that matter, that is a concern for moving the submit protocol to Draft status and beyond; the practice of disbanding WGs after a Proposed Standard has been produced leaves a void regarding the necessary work to advance along the Standards Track. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf