The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension
draft-freed-smtp-limits-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-07
|
(System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-freed-smtp-limits and RFC 9422, changed IESG state to RFC … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-freed-smtp-limits and RFC 9422, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2024-02-05
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2024-01-09
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2024-01-08
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-11-21
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-11-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-11-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-11-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-11-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-11-16
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-11-16
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K was marked no-response |
2023-11-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-11-09
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2023-11-09
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Julian Reschke was marked no-response |
2023-11-08
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-11-08
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-11-08
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-11-07
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-11-07
|
07 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-11-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-11-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-11-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-11-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-11-07
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2023-10-26
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2023-10-26
|
07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification, I have no objection from TSV point of views. |
2023-10-26
|
07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2023-10-26 from 2023-11-30 |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 6. Editorial. In the spirit of inclusive language consider s/A man-in-the-middle attack/An on-path attack/ ** Section 6. All that said, … [Ballot comment] ** Section 6. Editorial. In the spirit of inclusive language consider s/A man-in-the-middle attack/An on-path attack/ ** Section 6. All that said, decades of operational experience with the SMTP "SIZE" extension [SIZE], which provides servers with the ability to indicate message size, indicates that such abuse is rare and unlikely to be a significant problem. Consider adding that opportunistic encryption/STARTTLS would also help mitigate on-path tampering of these values. |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] I see that SIZE was a "limit" handled previously in RFC1870. However, when reading that limit, I don't see any language as … [Ballot comment] I see that SIZE was a "limit" handled previously in RFC1870. However, when reading that limit, I don't see any language as present in this document about new SIZE limits after authentication. Is that something appropriate to add to this document? I don't see another document that updates 1870 for this? Would it make sense to also fold in SIZE into this new limit syntax in the hopes of perhaps obsoleting the SIZE extension as a separate extension a decade from now ? |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Paul Wouters | Ballot comment text updated for Paul Wouters |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] I see that SIZE was a "limit" handled previously in RFC1870. However, when reading that limit, I don't see any language as … [Ballot comment] I see that SIZE was a "limit" handled previously in RFC1870. However, when reading that limit, I don't see any language as present in this document about new SIZE limits after authentication. Is that something appropriate to add to this document? I don't see another document that updates 1870 for this? Would it make size to also fold in SIZE into this new limit syntax in the hopes of perhaps obsoleting the SIZE extension as a separate extension a decade from now ? |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I would like to echo Rob's thanks to John. |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-10-25
|
07 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] John, thank you for shepherding Ned's document through to RFC. I have one very minor nit, which is a typo on 'Regisry' in … [Ballot comment] John, thank you for shepherding Ned's document through to RFC. I have one very minor nit, which is a typo on 'Regisry' in section 7.1. Regards, Rob |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-10-25
|
07 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2023-10-24
|
07 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-11-30 |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot has been issued |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-10-22
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2023-10-22
|
07 | John Klensin | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-07.txt |
2023-10-22
|
07 | John Klensin | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: John Klensin) |
2023-10-22
|
07 | John Klensin | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-22
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Pending discussion and resolution of some IANA questions. |
2023-10-22
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-10-04
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-10-03
|
06 | Johan Stenstam | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Johan Stenstam. Sent review to list. |
2023-10-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-10-02
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-freed-smtp-limits-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-freed-smtp-limits-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question and a note about the second action requested in the document's IANA Considerations section. We understand that upon approval of this document, there are two actions to complete: First, in the SMTP Service Extensions registry in the MAIL Parameters registry group at https://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters/ a single new registration will be made: EHLO Keyword: LIMITS Description: Server limits Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: Second, a new registry called the SMTP Server Limits registry will be created. QUESTION: Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group (i.e. a collection of registries at one URL, like "MAIL Parameters")? If it needs a new group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the group and the category have the same name)? The new registry will be managed via Specification Required, as defined by RFC 8126 (but please see the IANA note below for further considerations for the management of the registry). NOTE: Section 7.2 states that the registration procedure proposed in draft-klensin-iana-consid-hybrid could be used if that option becomes available and generally accepted. However, authors are not required to use registration procedures defined in RFC 8126. The author could describe it and use it in this document. If so, we would suggest that the procedure be separated into something like "IETF Review (Standards Track or Experimental Preferred)" and First Come First Served. Also, if the hybrid document is proposing a procedure that provides those two options, it isn't clear why the latter isn't being proposed as a second registration procedure when this document goes on to say that Specification Required should be used if the hybrid procedure can't be. Registries at https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic and https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes allow for "provisional" registrations made via FCFS and "permanent" registrations made via another procedure. The specific terms "provisional" and "permanent" aren't required if they aren't appropriate, but even if the hybrid procedure were used, the registry would presumably have to provide some set of labels in the registry that would be used to distinguish registrations made via FCFS from registrations that required a particular kind of RFC and/or an expert review. There are three initial registrations in the new registry: Name: MAILMAX Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum Description: MAILMAX specifies the maximum number of transactions (MAIL FROM commands) the server will accept in a single session. The count includes all MAIL FROM commands, regardless of whether they succeed or fail. Restrictions: None. Security Considerations: See [ RFC-to-be, Section 6] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: RCPTMAX Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum Description: RCPTMAX specifies the maximum number of RCPT TO commands the server will accept in a single transaction. It is not a limit on the actual number of recipients the message ends up being sent to; a single RCPT TO command may produce multiple recipients or, in the event of an error, none. Restrictions: None. Security Considerations: See [ RFC-to-be, Section 6] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: RCPTDOMAINMAX Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum Description: RCPTDOMAINMAX specifies the maximum number of different domains that can appear in a recipient (RCPT TO) address within a single session. This limit is imposed by some servers that bind to a specific internal delivery mechanism on receipt of the first RCPT TO command. Restrictions: None. Security Considerations: See [ RFC-to-be, Section 6] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these are the only two IANA actions required by the document. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Amanda Baber IANA Operations Manager |
2023-09-26
|
06 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. |
2023-09-15
|
06 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2023-09-07
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2023-09-07
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K |
2023-09-07
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2023-09-07
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2023-09-06
|
06 | Geoff Huston | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Johan Stenstam |
2023-09-06
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-09-06
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-04): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-freed-smtp-limits@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-04): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-freed-smtp-limits@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a "Limits" extension for the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), including submission, as well as the Local Mail Transfer Protocol (LMTP). It also defines an associated limit registry. The extension provides the means for an SMTP, submission, or LMTP server to inform the client of limits the server intends to apply to the protocol during the current session. The client is then able to adapt its behavior in order to conform to those limits. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-freed-smtp-limits/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-09-06
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-09-06
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-09-05
|
06 | John Klensin | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-06.txt |
2023-09-05
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Last call was requested |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-09-05
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-09-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? It was considered in EMAILCORE, which chose not to process it. As there is no other appropriate home for it in the ART area at this time, it is now a sponsored document. 2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? Only its charter. The work otherwise got good discussion followed by general supportive grumbling from the appropriate community. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? (inquiry pending) ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Other than EMAILCORE (see above), no. It might be beneficial to make M3AAWG aware of it, but that's probably a unidirectional communication. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG here. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ABNF is relatively simple, and was reviewed manually. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The appropriate ART area reviews have occurred. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard is sought. This is appropriate given it describes an extension to SMTP which is a Draft Standard. The front page and all the usual places reflect this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, all one of them has been reminded. No disclosures have been filed, and none are anticipated. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No nits were reported when the current version was posted. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, they look right to me. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No, although it is possible an anticipated revision to RFC 8126bis may generate a revision to the registration policies of the registry created here. There's no other process to do so apart from blocking this until that publishes, but that could be a long time. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA Considerations section appears to be correct and complete. It creates a "Specification Required" registry, and RFC 8126 says such an action SHOULD be accompanied by advice to the Designated Expert(s). Such should be added before this goes to publication. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. See above. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-09-05
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Klensin , Ned Freed |
2023-09-05
|
06 | John Klensin | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed action holders to John Klensin |
2023-08-03
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy, Ned Freed, John Klensin (IESG state changed) |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-08-03
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2023-08-03
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from Dead |
2023-08-03
|
05 | John Klensin | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-05.txt |
2023-08-03
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-03
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Klensin , Ned Freed , francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, superuser@gmail.com |
2023-08-03
|
05 | John Klensin | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-13
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-05-13
|
04 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-13
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2023-02-17
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed action holders to John Klensin |
2022-11-10
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2022-11-10
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Assigned to Applications and Real-Time Area |
2022-11-10
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy |
2022-11-10
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2022-11-10
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Document is now in IESG state AD is watching |
2022-11-10
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2022-11-09
|
04 | John Klensin | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-04.txt |
2022-11-09
|
04 | Jenny Bui | Posted submission manually |
2022-01-13
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-12
|
03 | Ned Freed | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-03.txt |
2021-07-12
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ned Freed) |
2021-07-12
|
03 | Ned Freed | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-18
|
02 | Ned Freed | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-02.txt |
2021-04-18
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-18
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ned Freed |
2021-04-18
|
02 | Ned Freed | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-15
|
01 | Ned Freed | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-01.txt |
2021-03-15
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-15
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ned Freed |
2021-03-15
|
01 | Ned Freed | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Ned Freed | New version available: draft-freed-smtp-limits-00.txt |
2021-03-15
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Ned Freed | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Ned Freed |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Ned Freed | Uploaded new revision |