Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opes-smtp-use-cases-02.txt

William Leibzon <[email protected]> Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.opes
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Well, since you mention it, it might be good to remove extra space
after "MAIL FROM: and "RCPT TO:", same debate in ietf-smtp about
proper syntax, i.e. it should be:

       C: MAIL FROM:<[email protected]>
       S: 250 2.1.0 [email protected] OK
       C: RCPT TO:<[email protected]>
       S: 250 2.1.5 [email protected] it might be best to show syntax

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hector Santos wrote:

> Extremely minor comment:
>
> I really would not had commented on this,   but we just had a rather lengthy
> discussion about proper syntax in the SMTP WG and how a systems may reject
> the transaction due to improper syntax.  You need angle brackets around the
> return path (MAIL FROM:) and forward path (RCPT TO:)
>      C: MAIL FROM: <[email protected]>
>      S: 250 2.1.0 [email protected] OK
>      C: RCPT TO: <[email protected]>
>      S: 250 2.1.5 [email protected] it might be best to show syntax
> correct examples.
>
> Minor stuff. Otherwise the document sounds look to me!
>
> --
> Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
> http://www.santronics.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Hansen" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Markus Hofmann" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opes-smtp-use-cases-02.txt
>
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I did a thorough review of this version of the document and really like
>> it. It has a number of small nits that I'll address in a separate email
>> message (typos, etc.), but I think that the basic document is fairly
>> well structured, succinct and clear.
>>
>> The only semi-major change I'd consider making to it would be to copy a
>> version of Figure 2 (without the OCP callouts) into the Brief Overview,
>> after the paragraph "SMTP commands are...". Figure 1 and Figure 2 as
>> they are now have a lot of differrences, and it would make it clearer
>> when it gets to the current Figure 2 exactly what OPES is adding to the
> mix.
>>
>> As I said, I think this is a good document.
>>
>>  Tony Hansen
>>  [email protected]
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the Open Pluggable Edge Services Working
> Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>  Title  : OPES SMTP Use Cases
>>>  Author(s) : A. Barbir, M. Stecher
>>>  Filename : draft-ietf-opes-smtp-use-cases-02.txt
>>>  Pages  : 16
>>>  Date  : 2005-7-6
>>>
>>> The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) framework is application
>>>    agnostic.  Application specific adaptations extend that framework.
>>>    This document describes OPES SMTP use cases and deployment scenarios
>>>    in preparation for SMTP adaptation with OPES.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFCzDwDxsSylYhzrRYRAp3pAKCcI4kt3KSwY7GDJPibuFreS8chYQCgwUDB
>> hHvkmQae63aXHtj0/vbYaJA=
>> =44s5
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---
William Leibzon
   mailto: [email protected]
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
   http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/
Whois & DNS Network Investigation Tools:
   http://www.completewhois.com
smime.p7s (application/x-pkcs7-signature, 1.1 KB) - not displayed