IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 743EA3A0AE1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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=gmail.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 xNRVMM421tB4 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9A8A3A0AE6 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id a21so1586636otq.8 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A6J+UI6qYV9wgfJVuvpzhdym2YQozndRKUPnaQ4R/Ig=; b=jLCxpGVC53+Df8oYtLwydj5Jvn/UrV0l5kU0lsPayKZJ5/CCYnIvmBCiOhJaSlGlQ8 Ga92pAS60dzj8CY22i4Ilhln3W47o3JMBL5zblJOgH3EuQAhlJYrrGcQtO9w7y4plK4N kFCQs7Wyt9ggRSj7BuSr4HiDrHlEyZxZfqIMA3S6+fbXXM/RYdWd1eLGQeXhACAR4pw/ l43zU6Mz/1PZhLsM/g2o4d/tHlZE99GBrKPXBUhp7k39toJEVjjBocNfuL716K5x1u4C LJcp8tuc+NlVTmzPWGJ1BkMeiQLVcZmBNPPGvdH6A2vCrTxvxbhRwJEWK+8lJgx5Tdgz dJ+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=A6J+UI6qYV9wgfJVuvpzhdym2YQozndRKUPnaQ4R/Ig=; b=sq1cKycjsngf9xIxbG0V4EXCEG/qqhrKKJXvO38cRJlcI6blVJMEtxpJYavL/jEQNS RAAGPF4LF+aaID1L/JjuIFpO7LjrUi4gYE0L9b2mxJByoujaGBIC/YsF9qr/lo+/bbNF o7hEwk//hIElbgEIdLRcp4M17vHULm9ne5KznA6kFx3YTpAKGgkBQbcgZzozedO4ZnQE SKkm3YhZyGjS+AzPzAT0ogBnN4LSxbHm2w2I/w+jWszaaeHHcHeBsWAAuTSfMQwxRqMQ xG/AaDcf9WxvB0U0r76QXxvmba6ciwdbM8zxHqSAbBpaa6BISQZSvdxKJM4DQX2Kxkqe b2eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vLcAvJv1Cfsez5LHa7/PeVj4/Cp7ZIRf5VbM5eJerOhyKg5vi zupxFoLAmm1eIFThUNn9BFCPH1H49vR6YeBAfME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4aGocGvLl0LFJOQ6uHb+xoHo6z1xY2KEbua3/K3zQYvs+syM8sU9UTE1+90qfy+4tf/GfPVI9g39nSYYsMjk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:480d:: with SMTP id c13mr30307020otf.4.1595420816927; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ead2de74-68be-144c-1a6a-4d55e3ab59c2@isode.com> <d9373795-7119-1ada-acc5-d564bf7ff793@dcrocker.net> <CADyWQ+F+Q_-9fQfSr2MAieLi82PTGr0r+jPPWs5LLygYHROzcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+F+Q_-9fQfSr2MAieLi82PTGr0r+jPPWs5LLygYHROzcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:26:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+Eyqsg-hyTR2fdDV0Eq1niUQL=zZ6vGt0Wu8-FhTbB5rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f70ad05ab06dbe8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/53L7RAUd5Mi4weILo1lRgay0cBE>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be
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 12:27:00 -0000

In the last paragraph, would it harm to drop "and assuming the
participants still
have the momentum to do so" ?  Recharting will require reevaluation anyway.



On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:23 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word "that" as
> feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more times.   His other edits
> (on the run on sentence) are spot on.
>
> Also, first paragraph:
> s/exists according to current IETF procedure/exists according to the
> current IETF procedure/
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2020 5:07 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> > This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, and
>> > publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status,
>> per
>> > RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to include corrections and
>> > clarifications only, such as verified errata and errata marked as "held
>> > for document update", however the WG is not limited to only addressing
>> > submitted errata. No new protocol extensions or amendments will be
>> > considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless
>> they
>> > are already published as RFCs.
>>
>>
>> Possible refinement to the wording of this paragraph:
>>
>> This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, and
>> will publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard
>> status, per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to corrections
>> and clarifications only. In addition to processing existing, verified
>> errata and errata marked as "held for document update", the WG may
>> address newly-offered errata.  However, no new protocol extensions or
>> amendments will be considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis
>> documents, unless they are already published as RFCs.
>>
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ietf-smtp mailing list
>> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email