[Emailcore] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-emailcore-as some mail stats

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 4:42 PM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2026, at 15:11, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 11:34 AM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 Oct 2026, at 11:30, Rob Sayre wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just drop the third paragraph.
> >>
> >> No, for the reasons Viktor has explained best (IMO) multiple times, the
> latest of which in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/vhhv5S2C60tIRVESAzBs7IBJdCc
> to which I have not seen any reply.
> >
> > I don't think you can read 5321bis and this document and come away
> without a clear view of the concern he highlights.
>
> I completely agree with that, but perhaps I'm missing the point.
>

That you can still get there without the last paragraph in 6.5 containing
the MUST.


>
> > In particular, "If you want to delete the required cleartext support,
> you'll need to delete all of section 6.5," doesn't seem like a reasonable
> position to take. The issue the MUST implement insecure modes, not the rest
> of it.
>
> You didn't respond to his point at all: Deleting it would skew the
> applicability statement to imply that support for cleartext is no longer
> required for interoperability purposes. Why do you think we should not call
> out that requirement?
>

In many cases, it isn't required. Or, TLS is required (GDPR etc). That's
not true for big providers, like GMail or Fastmail, they still have to do
it.

The problem with the current text is that it licenses future insecure
products. The backward compatibility concern I understand, and I believe
5321bis covers that well.

thanks,
Rob