IPP> RFC 2821/2822 - SMTP (obsoletes RFC 821/822)

Tue May 1 11:55:53 EDT 2001

Hi Tom,

Good question about the standards status of RFC 821/822 (SMTP v1)
and RFC 2821/2822 (SMTP v2).

The way the IETF standards process works, the second (new) RFC
has to climb the standards ladder one step at a time, so that
(for example) it's taken several years for SNMPv3 (RFC 2571-2576)
to climb from Proposed to Draft and now (soon) to Internet Std.

So RFC 2821 will take several years to actually replace RFC 821
(odd, isn't it?).

Cheers,
- Ira

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:41 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'ipp at pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> RFC 2821/2822 - SMTP (obsoletes RFC 821/822)

Note that these two important RFCs are exactly 2000 higher than the RFCs
that they obsolete.

2821 obsoletes 821
2822 obsoletes 822

We did the same sort of a standards number pun for ISO 10646 which is the
new International charset standard (Unicode) eclipsing ISO 646 which was the
original 7-bit International charset standard.  We pre-reserved the 10646
number with the ISO Secretariat, so perhaps the IETF editors did the same
thing here?

On a more important note, I am confused by the IETF standards status and
process for these standards.  From the RFC Index, RFC 821 status had been
STANDARD with STD0010 (so presumably its gone through being a Proposed
Standard and a Draft Standard to reach Standard status), but RFC 821 (and
STD0010) is now obsoleted by RFC 2821 which is only a (lowly) Proposed
Standard.

Thanks,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 08:53
To: 'ipp at pwg.org'
Subject: IPP> RFC 2821/2822 - SMTP (obsoletes RFC 821/822)

Hi folks,

With thanks to Hiroshi Tamura, see the IETF announcements below.
Available at the IETF FTP repository at:

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2821.txt

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2822.txt

Tom, RFC 2822 "Internet Message Format" has the set of rules for
line folding and paragraphing in including text that you've waited
for.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
  High North Inc

-----------------------------------------------------
Folks,

For your information, I forward the attached announce to our ML,
although lots of people may already know it.

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Co-Chair of IETF-FAX WG
E-mail: tamura at toda.ricoh.co.jp

-----------------------------------------------------

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 2821

        Title:	    Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
        Author(s):  J. Klensin, Editor
        Status:     Standards Track
	Date:       April 2001
        Mailbox:    klensin at research.att.com
        Pages:      79
        Characters: 192504
        Updates:    1123
        Obsoletes:  821, 974

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt

This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol
for the Internet electronic mail transport.  It consolidates, updates
and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality of
the following:

-  the original SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) specification of
   RFC 821,

-  domain name system requirements and implications for mail
   transport from RFC 1035 and RFC 974,

-  the clarifications and applicability statements in RFC 1123,
   and

-  material drawn from the SMTP Extension mechanisms.

It obsoletes RFC 821, RFC 974, and updates RFC 1123 (replaces the
mail transport materials of RFC 1123).  However, RFC 821 specifies
some features that were not in significant use in the Internet by the
mid-1990s and (in appendices) some additional transport models.  Those
sections are omitted here in the interest of clarity and brevity;
readers needing them should refer to RFC 821.

It also includes some additional material from RFC 1123 that required
amplification.  This material has been identified in multiple ways,
mostly by tracking flaming on various lists and newsgroups and
problems of unusual readings or interpretations that have
appeared as the SMTP extensions have been deployed.  Where this
specification moves beyond consolidation and actually differs from
earlier documents, it supersedes them technically as well as
textually.

Although SMTP was designed as a mail transport and delivery protocol,
this specification also contains information that is important to its
use as a 'mail submission' protocol, as recommended for POP and IMAP. 

Additional submission issues are discussed in RFC 2476.

Section 2.3 provides definitions of terms specific to this document.
Except when the historical terminology is necessary for clarity, this
document uses the current 'client' and 'server' terminology to
identify the sending and receiving SMTP processes, respectively.

A companion document discusses message headers, message bodies
and formats and structures for them, and their relationship.

This document is a product of the Detailed Revision/Update of Message
Standards Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the
"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST at IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info at RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: rfc-info at RFC-EDITOR.ORG
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.echo 
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

----------------------------------------------------