Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
- To: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Subject: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:48:46 -0500
- cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, scoya@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-ed@isi.edu>
- Content-Length: 2213
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Nov 1998 13:49:34 PST." <199811032149.NAA12870@rostam.neda.com>
- Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
I apologize for the tone of my earlier message. It was written hastily and without proper respect. I should have waited a while before responding so as to better frame my argument. I do have real concerns about the impact of this protocol on the Internet email system, should it be widely deployed. I understand the utility in publishing EMSD as a "point-of-record" if it is widely deployed - so people can build tools that interoperate with deployed devices. So if you can convince us that widely deployed devices are already using this protocol, that would weigh heavily in IESG's decision to recommend (or not) that your document be published. Even so, I feel certain that IESG would want to add a note to the document describing limitations of the approach and perhaps even recommending against implementing it in new devices. Frankly, without such justification, I'd rather not take the time to do the thorough review that it would take to write up such a note, because that time would be better spent designing a new protocol. Such a protocol needs to give very careful consideration to not only packet/bandwidth efficiency, but also to implementation complexity (which has a profound effect on code quality and therefore operational reliability). Also, experience over many years indicates that mail gateways are a primary source of operational failures, and that such failures are notoriously difficult to diagnose and fix due to the lack of proper trace information. If there's going to be a new Internet mail submission/relay/delivery protocol, the relationship between the new protocol and Internet Mail also needs to be carefully defined as part of the protocol design. This will ensure that such gateways work as well as possible, minimizing the operational difficulties. I believe that such design work would best be done in an IETF working group, where we have a large community with substantial expertise in Internet email. These people also have a significant interest in making sure that the gateway issues are sorted out, since they will be the ones who have to implement and operate the gateways that talk between MIME/SMTP and the new protocol. Keith
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt (EMSD)
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt (EMSD)
- Replies
- Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt, Mohsen BANAN
- Prev by Date: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
- Next by Date: Do Later -- Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt (EMSD)
- Prev by thread: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
- Next by thread: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt (EMSD)
- Index(es):