Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A46B3A0A83 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FsttkMP3N65G for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C9A3A0A90 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595434831; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=sQxrjG36j85Tbn1MyHhnyIxIgIH7ACDeyZxilg4OTro=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=vLD64gbwBGhl3OrP38mtcA1vsm8ZX1alloClXPYOH1BTcSzsnz/atqYOQpb3FGEH4BoLRx 3LdUthoT3QyknR9RW5UVnR3WZ1DnTm0QS6qZM+Q4fiia+e0v3oNVDcI/7Cu49SCKG47koA 3TX8Xid+UwfTdx6h92Uj0oIIfaK5heg=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host31-49-142-53.range31-49.btcentralplus.com [31.49.142.53]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <XxhnTgAkBsU=@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:20:31 +0100
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com> <3b8e5d41-1b61-ca9e-f257-792d3d0f0f6e@dcrocker.net> <a9915d28-8a32-e5d4-daee-6b32775030f5@isode.com> <0104b45b-a335-d596-1883-83ca0f2424a0@dcrocker.net>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <1e8bc43e-4e95-1b4d-4fbc-37a99bbccc73@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:20:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <0104b45b-a335-d596-1883-83ca0f2424a0@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/0WhH5lt6wFwMwNDdBjApE2HF9mw>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:20:34 -0000

On 22/07/2020 14:07, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 7/22/2020 5:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> Applicability Statements have long been popular in the IETF.  They 
>>> are an obviously good idea.
>>>
>>> Less obvious is whether they are worth the effort.
>>>
>>> Who uses them and what is the evidence they are worth the effort?
>>
>> This would be a good topic to raise at the BOF.
>
> Mailing lists are generally viewed as the best place for raising and 
> discussing issues.
>
> Meetings have very limited time, and -- worse -- the real-time 
> (spontaneous) nature of meetings does not permit sustained consideration.
>
> So I'm raising the question now, hoping for responses /before/ the 
> meeting, as input to the meeting.

Dave, I was not being flippant when I wrote "good topic for the BOF". I 
am happy to have a discussion of this now, but this needs answers from 
more than just me.

My personal opinion is that I find them useful. Other people might disagree.