Re: The STD index and STD 10

[Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>]

IESG:

The RFC Editor would like to request from the IESG a formal statement
from the IESG Secretary about changing the definition of STD 10 (e.g.,
adding RFC 974), per the enclosed message below.

Joyce
(for RFC Editor)

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

From: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The STD index and STD 10
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org

> I believe that this is just a trivial mistake that simply needs
> fixing, rather than a large procedural issue, but am copying the
> IESG in case someone disagrees.

> I believe the definition of STD 10 (SMTP, etc.) is incorrect.
> It now lists RFC 821 (SMTP) and RFC 1869 (SMTP extensions).  If
> my memory is correct, it used to list RFC 974 (mail routing
> using MX records) as well.  821 is incomplete without 974 and
> support for 974 is mandatory (If I recall, RFC 1123 says so).
> So 974 should be included in STD 10.  So, ideally, should the
> relevant sections of 1123, although that would set some new
> precedents.

> This all gets straightened out with 2821ter, but that doesn't
> seem to be happening very quickly :-(

> Could the definition of STD 10 be updated/corrected in the
> interim?

FWIW, I concur with John's analysis of what should be in STD 10.
RCC 974 is an integral part of it; you cannot do contemporary email
without it.

				Ned


------------- End Forwarded Message -------------