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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Дилян,

On 22/07/2020 13:18, Дилян Палаузов wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > G.6.  Clarify where the protocol stands with respect to submission 
> and TLS issues
> > 1.  submission on port 587 or port 465
>
> RFC 8314 says in the Introduction:
>
> “This memo now recommends that:
>
> o Connections to Mail Submission Servers and Mail Access Servers be 
> made using "Implicit TLS" (as defined below), in preference to 
> connecting to the "cleartext" port and negotiating TLS using the 
> STARTTLS command or a similar command.”
>
> My reading is thay the above text clarifies to prefer 465 over 587.

Come to the EMAILCORE BOF and we will discuss :-).

Best Regards,

Alexey

> Greetings
> Дилян
>
> На 22 юли 2020 г. 14:49:46 GMT+03:00, Alexey Melnikov 
> <[e-mail]> написа:
>
>     Revision of core Email specifications (emailcore) agenda for [virtual]
>     Madrid.
>
>
>     WEDNESDAY, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
>     11:00-12:40 (1 hour 40 mins)
>
>
>     Agenda bashing, introduction, meeting format (chairs) -  5 mins
>     Problem statement (chairs) -  5 mins
>
>     Review of proposed changes to "Internet Message Format" (RFC 5322)
>     draft-resnick-rfc5322bis - 15 mins
>
>        Issue with ABNF for "field":https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2950
>        Disallow empty quoted string:https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3135
>        Header field name length limit:https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5918
>
>
>     Triage of raised issues for "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol" (RFC 5321)
>     draft-klensin-rfc5321bis - 10 mins
>
>     Example topics (we tackle as many as we have time for)
>
>        G.9.  Revisiting Quoted Strings
>
>        G.7.11.  Bring back 1yz reply codes?
>
>     Core Email Applicability Statement: - 35 mins
>
>        G.6.  Clarify where the protocol stands with respect to submission and
>              TLS issues
>
>          1.  submission on port 587 or port 465
>
>          2.  TLS relay on a port different from 25 (whenever)
>
>        Suggested SMTP Extensions:
>         G.8.  Enhanced Reply Codes and DSNs
>         8BITMIME
>         SMTPUTF8 (a.k.a. EAI)
>
>        Terminology:
>         G.3.  Meaning of "MTA" and Related Terminology
>         G.7.2.  SMTP Model, terminology, and relationship to RFC 5598
>         G.11.  SMTP Clients, Servers, Senders, and Receivers
>
>        G.1.  IP Address Literals in EHLO, MAIL or RCPT
>
>        G.7.3.  Resolvable FQDNs and private domain names
>
>        G.10.  Internationalization Consideration section needed?
>
>
>     High level discussion of how the proposed WG going to decide
>     which issues to tackle (chairs) -  5 mins
>
>     Charter Review and discussion (chairs) - 25 mins
>
>
>
>     Documents:
>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-rfc5322bis/?include_text=1
>        https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5322&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis/?include_text=1
>        https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5321&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-email-core-as/?include_text=1
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     If we go too quickly through triage of some issues, here are some others
>     that
>     we can discuss:
>
>     G.5.  Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452
>
>          The suggestion in Section 4.5.3.1.10 may have outlived its usefulness
>          and/or be inconsistent with current practice.  Should it be removed
>          and/or explicitly deprecated?
>
>     G.7.1.  Issues with 521, 554, and 556 codes
>
>          See new Section 4.2.4.2.  More text may be needed, there or
>          elsewhere, about choices of codes in response to initial opening and
>          to EHLO, especially to deal with selective policy rejections.
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     ietf-smtp mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>