Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 04 June 2021 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 3C6033A231E for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:15:01 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 gcX5ufvoDh-T for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (beige.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C95C23A231C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5007021D1; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 22:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout2.hostinger.io (100-96-16-78.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.78]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 88FC27020D1; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 22:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout2.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [145.14.159.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.96.16.78 (trex/6.3.1); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:14:51 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Gusty-Bottle: 5dfc92e41aa5f4bf_1622844891520_751669442
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1622844891520:966039434
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1622844891520
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout2.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 55C64324D6CC; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 22:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1622844888; bh=DP/AY8hGV2P7YIYcB0uVhkCao407L/MuM6HZ4NQHnp4=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=nUgIEnG+BvwwPfk/+BynnpnUdofpCT456eF3Ubz7vtAUCMuph1rjjuaKlcHEHtPTO 1BNLtifWqP4YLUh9dwmG+RVvFUB4qLqR8kwnxnlMJpahFJMjU9+skqZ3MxQMJ649Yi K37f3i2fi+dXzADRSEYQOWl8uONHVQ97P87GTE+Oz/n2nn3bpM6jIWx05qPttzOCI/ /RF/spqDQsXbnX6dTmgY+2guWFqYskfAkLH3ucyy0SrWA5Nn/geexI86J4N2vjbwzR qhIhDXBZ3n44riVrQjHscJuqo6DrEae2U/pvCaTo5dOosXVSxj2T3drLS8t02Fck/E ZpqA7DQSIaXng==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn> <YK7E1dBKneP8B8Ib@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RZNI90M6SS0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <E23639ADA7487360C9B5A93C@PSB> <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <e9a6ce3e-3f83-a221-d132-fd021a2b5002@dcrocker.net> <cone.1622844380.436481.31038.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <c3651aba-db32-614c-c89c-0dab91a9faf4@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:14:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cone.1622844380.436481.31038.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/4DiV4v1LQEKbF6u2gmDYMznoSA0>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:15:01 -0000

On 6/4/2021 3:06 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> The current preference is for A-labels. But after SMTPUTF8 becomes 
> customary: at some point it will make sense to interpret SHOULD using 
> its original meaning, here.

One of the consistent demonstrates of Internet Scale is that transition 
times are /really/ long.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net