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@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:41 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'ipp@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@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 08:53
To: 'ipp@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@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@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@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
To: rfc-info@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@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@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information.
Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute
----------------------------------------------------
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 2822
Title: Internet Message Format Author(s): P. Resnick, Editor Status: Standards Track Date: March 2001 Mailbox: presnick@qualcomm.com Pages: 50 Characters: 110695 Obsoletes: 822
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt
URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2822.txt
This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. This standard supersedes the one specified in Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.
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@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
To: rfc-info@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@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@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information.
Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 12:05:10 EDT