Re: [yam] #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

yam issue tracker wrote:
> #7: RFC 5321 Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions
> -----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>  Reporter:  sm+ietf at …                    |       Owner:     
>      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:     
> Component:  5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation  |     Version:     
>  Severity:  -                            |    Keywords:     
> -----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>  Comment about RFC 5321 posted by Alessandro Vesely on 12 Nov 2009
>
>  Section 2.2.2: add a bullet for the definition of extensions.
>  It should say that "Future SMTP extensions SHOULD explicitly specify if
>  they are valid on the Submission port." [RFC 4409, Sect. 7]
>
>  Rationale: not 100% sure, because while RFC 4409 says that, it doesn't
>  formally update RFC 2821 (nor RFC 2476 updated RFC 1869.)
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00164.html
>
>   
This comes from RFC 2476, all of 11 years ago. We were a good deal less 
careful about UPDATES clauses then than we are now. (Sometimes I wonder 
if that's an improvement or the opposite.)

I think it's a good idea to include some version of that sentence.

                           Harald