Re: draft-gellens-on-demand-04.txt

["Jeff Stephenson" <jeffstep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Randall Gellens <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 4:24 PM


>For interoperability, I think it is best to stick with 366 in the
>document.  Using a separate port doesn't preclude offering ODMR
>integrated with SMTP; the server can listen to both ports.  If a
>provider wanted to offer ODMR only on port 25, as long as the customer
>could configure its end to also use 25 (which shouldn't be a problem)
>then it's no business of anyone else.


I just don't buy the need for _specifying_ a particular port for this
service.  It's not as if you can just point your server at any random host
and expect ATRN to work; there has to be a bilateral agreement between
customer and provider to specify the authentication ID and the domains that
are to be queued, and this agreement can also easily include the port.  I
have no problem with the draft noting that port 366 is available for use by
services that don't integrate ODMR into SMTP, I just don't like saying that
366 is _the_ ODMR port.

-- jeff