To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Date:
Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:04:19 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<200210112035.g9BKZWpu003512@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: how to exchange EPP content using SMTP transport
At 04:35 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >Once I caught MIME, everything looked like a frenchman wearing thick makeup. never seen one. don't know what they look like. >I decided that it was more useful to write a Foo-over-OneTP memo than a >MetaFoo-over-ManyTP memo. well, my primary point is that for most of the material, this is not "over SMTP". Rather, it is "over MIME". MIME is the bottom layer to worry about. That said, there really ARE some SMTP issues that at least need to be cited, now that I think of it. Addressing and reliability (as in, actual transmissions issues) come to mind. Given that SMTP is not reliable on an end-to-end basis, what do we want to do if/when a message gets dropped? > > The table is interesting, but I am not clear what purpose it servces in the > > current specification. Please clarify. > >Personel taste. A weakness for taxonomy. But I still don't know what purpose it serves for this document. The other two protocols are not under consideration and are not mentioned elsewhere in the doc, are they? > > probably should also cite rfc2822, resnick, "Internet Message Format" and > > rfc2821, klensin, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol". > >Thank. I like the oldies. I've a nit with the moderns I haven't got my head >around. pro forma requirement. part of helping the adoption curve. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850