> > > Sam is correct here - the text as written is incorrect, even if it > > > accurately reflects the authors' intent. > > > > > You mean that you disagree with the authors' intent. That is quite > > different from the document being "incorrect". > > > I meant what I said. You may infer that it is my opinion, and take > that for what you think it's worth. Ok. Please explain precisely what text in the draft is "incorrect" and what is "incorrect" about it. What you wrote means that you are asserting that we did not mean treat as submission. And I'll just bet that's not what you actually meant. > > I gave a case analysis for 3 conditions. I believe none of them > > was wrong and > > that there is not a fourth case. If you feel otherwise, please > > provide detail. > > > I didn't see a clear breakdown of those cases. A Friday, 5:27pm posting from me: "In other words, if you are coming from outside the network, you do not get to "relay" through the network. You can post/submit from within, you can deliver into the net or you can post/submit from outside." > > Again, I believe you are confusing what your own views and preferences > > are, with some sort of independent, objective reality. > > > I could make the same claim about what you seem to be doing. Yes, you could. But that would be incorrect. > > "Outside the network" is exactly what we felt was relevant. It might be > > dandy to phrase this as some more generic issue, but since this is an > > operations document, for consumption by operations people, it is phrased > > in a way that is useful to THEIR perspective. > > > This perspective is specific to MSAs that are operated by IP networks > for the customers of those IP networks. Actually it is not. It specifies a topological distinction that is quite straightforward and has nothing to do with any business relationship, per se. If all of an MSA's users access the MSA from networks other than the one that the MSA is on, then all the users are "outside the network". > > The document uses the term 'submission' to refer to the hand-off > > step. It quite > > carefully distinguishes between the two ports through which > > submission is > > currently done. > > > I don't see any effort to distinguish the two, say in section 2. Section 2, Terminology. Definition of the word submission: "At the origination end, an MUA works on behalf of end users to create a message and perform initial "submission" into the transmission infrastructure," Whereas references to the services on different ports is... gosh. By port number. If you want text changed, then please suggest specific changes. > Indeed, it appears that the document uses several vague terms without > bothering to define them. Speaking of vagueness, please review your sentence, directly above, and explain to me what specific references it makes and what specific changes it calls for. > no, that's not what I meant. I meant "treating a message received by > an MTA as a submission has never been well defined". Given that section 3 discussion the construct extensively, then I cannot guess what more you are looking for. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf