Skip to main content

The Internet Email to Support Diverse Service Environments (Lemonade) Profile
RFC 5550

Yes

(Chris Newman)
(Lisa Dusseault)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2009-03-11)
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2:
>                           The Lemonade Profile

  Title doesn't describe the content. Title of RFC4550 was much clearer.
  Suggest to use it.

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-03-12)
Good work. Its nice to see an explanation how to use existing
protocol components to deal with the limits of a particular
environment.

I would have voted Yes on this if it weren't for the fact that
I'm not sufficiently familiar with all parts of the protocol
set to say for sure that you didn't miss anything.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-03-11)
Hannes Tschofenig's SecDir review identified a couple of places that
would benefit from some clarification of the text, and provided
editorial comments that should be taken into acccount.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-03-11)
  The 2nd paragraph of Section 7 says:
  >
  > Note that the explicit usage of [SUBMIT] means that when opening a
  > connection to the submission server, clients MUST do so using port
  > 587 unless explicitly configured to use an alternate port [RFC5068].
  > If the TCP connection to the submission server fails to open using
  > port 587, the client MAY then immediately retry using a different
  > port, such as 25.  See [SUBMIT] information on why using port 25 is
  > likely to fail depending on the current location of the client, and
  > may result in a failure code during the SMTP transaction.
  >
  It is unclear to me if this is a new MUST requirement or if it is
  intended to be clarification od one that is already in [SUBMIT].
  Please add text to clear this up.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-03-12)
Shouldn't this document update 4469 and 4467 since it adds a new capability (URL-PARTIAL)
to the CATENATE and URLAUTH extensions?

I also think the definition of the new URL-PARTIAL capability should be added to the
replacement for section 12 (summary of changes wrt 4550).