[ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 11:50 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 C1DCF3A09D8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:50:05 -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, 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 I_L-0Jb9YKKa for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1913A0933 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595418602; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=EBoOcX2QeBYrQwC8BQYTOdP6Pm5Yv+PNFR6lf1aOR2A=; 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=BpAwoFr42ng0WZ2o/Jqx2wiAea2TkqaBNHRUkQEKj9ebgYDV/qc3u0Q11nUK78LPOSU7Wx oPih/oGGEXLJwuksG3Ut3PLRKptw7XC4ygFs0UXzuZiJu3BbSSVWcUPiwENsMSOMub/vPf lgRMpVXCj8oVMjRA6cZqJtuSgmRh/vc=;
Received: from [172.27.248.213] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Xxgn6QAkBqI-@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:50:02 +0100
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:49:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
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/6JULb-AWLJ_LaLF-RIsec2yfY_s>
Subject: [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 11:50:06 -0000

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.