Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-brunner-epp-smtp-00.txt

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> [I clearly have a problem with English. Let me say the same thing in a
> different way.]

Thank you for making the effort.

> I never asked that. I suggested to *rename* the draft (not changing
> its actual content) from "EPP over SMTP" to "EPP over e-mail".

Understood. Now.

> Rationale: you do not use SMTP at all and your mapping will work as
> well over any e-mail transport, UUCP, SMTP, X400, etc.

Actually that was my intent, though I hadn't thought of X.400, and it
was one of the little reasons why I prefer 821/822 over 2821/2822, the
reference to X.25 -- openness to something other than TCP as transport.

Thanks for the uucp-in-action (1m air gap). This is the class of use I
had in mind, for registrars using dial-up (non-ICANN applications of EPP).

> Of course, I would not do EPP that way, but my idea was we should not
> limit to SMTP when the draft makes no use of any SMTP feature.

I guess I was recalling sendmail's MAILER(uucp) and MAILER(smtp) and
UUCP_RELAY, rulesets for address mapping  ...

Mea culpa.

Dave suggested moving all of the MIME security to another document. Any
comment?

Thanks again.

Eric