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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:24 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 D7C243A0B0C for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 aAX8HGv2crMr for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3838E3A0AE7 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595420671; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=7w/YDYXcX+w8NyOaw0ftmXuVzAtmwNG2Lr6IGIThcEI=; 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=pKIrvJ5aQm7yUOr4S/X5J2g4R+4EUdu6LXdA+yVQTfg2O8RZPMjjHAIfmLDf4wcwfKHztO skKzIevT1Zr7GSm7ns4bKUxJf0SkqBtxKnvVj1f5Fe7Fd43r3lkxVxLp9+MxaW37L52lW2 GlMF6dfdKmYc5PD9lKOq+snxzp/DOpk=;
Received: from [172.27.248.213] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Xxgv=gAkBsFt@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:24:31 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
References: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com> <1DD51B1C-03DE-457C-BD7B-F3E4E05EA692@aegee.org>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <32e1d225-a157-69f0-715a-4e499226a328@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:24:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <1DD51B1C-03DE-457C-BD7B-F3E4E05EA692@aegee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------65C565D1C337480321A75675"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/1SVBwM6PPzg9E6VFlnPtAgN0nk8>
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 12:24:44 -0000

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 
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> 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
>     ietf-smtp@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>