Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:16:16 -0700
From: DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: HELO procedural notes
Message-ID: <5667759.3173688976@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <20000723191750.28598.qmail@cr.yp.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--On Sunday, July 23, 2000 19:17 +0000 "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> 
wrote:
> ...
> In fact, according to Leiba's notes of the August 1998 meeting,
> ...
>
>    Consensus is that "SHOULD use EHLO" be dropped, and a client that
>    doesn't need extensions may use EHLO or HELO at the client's
>    discretion.
>
> That's consistent with discussions of the issue on the mailing list.
>
> So why does smtpupd-12 still say ``SHOULD preferentially utilize EHLO''?
> ...

Section 3.2 of smtpupd-09 (and later) complies with WG rough concensus from 
that meeting, including the goal of encouraging use of EHLO.

The editor's comments on this issue are in section X.1.9(iv).

I searched my archives for messages with "HELO" in the subject line. 
According to such messages, one person has objected to this text on at 
least two occasions.  In all cases there was no support expressed for the 
objection.  The chair concludes there is rough concensus that the current 
text is adequate for RFC publication and the issue is permanently closed.

		- DRUMS WG Chair