Re: [ietf-smtp] An Applicability Stateement for core email specifications - and request for AD advice/instructions

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
I am finally catching up with a few outstanding requests.

> On 8 Mar 2020, at 17:49, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> (personal opinion, not wearing any particular hat)
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Discussions on this (ietf-smtp) list since before IETF 106 and
> the informal proposals to try to revise RFCs 5321 and 5322 and
> get them done before now (!), have convinced me, and I think at
> least some others, that an Applicability Statement or BCP --one
> that can cover current advice for application and use of
> provisions of the core protocols and related ones -- is going to
> be key to an actual revision effort for 5322 and (especially)
> 5321 being a matter of weeks or a few months rather than years
> of work.
> 
> If we are going to continue discussions in anticipation of an
> eventual WG, I think it would be helpful to get an outline of
> what might be in, or evolved into, such an A/S or BCP posted
> soon.  It could act, not only as a placeholder but a place to
> keep (historically archival, because that might be important)
> notes of what we expect to put there, partially so that we could
> put pointers and references into 5321bis/5322bis.

I personally like this idea. So +1 from me.
> 
> Its presence as a placeholder could also help with constructing
> a draft WG Charter.
> 
> I guess I am, reluctantly, willing to sign up to produce a first
> cut at such an (-D or an outline of one (although certainly not
> before tomorrow's posting deadline).

Please do!

> But my condition for doing
> so would be a volunteer for co-author who would be willing to
> take over the work and maintain the document.  That would be a
> good opportunity for someone new at this work, possibly more
> involved in day-to-day operations of large email systems, and
> with a different perspective on things than I have.  So, unless
> others object or the ADs have conflicting advice, volunteers
> sought.

I am willing to help out with this one, if you like someone not junior (in addition to a more junior person).
> 
> On a similar note, I have been maintaining a list of possible
> issues and changes to 5321 in Appendix G of 5321bis.  I'm
> willing to continue to do that, but it may be that either a
> formal tracker or an IETF-sanctioned Github repository would be
> a better way to manage and facilitate discussion on those topics
> and where they belong.  Other than a personal distaste for
> trying to track long and complex discussions that I cannot read
> in real time in Github, I have no preference among the three
> options.  But I don't think setting something up requires a WG
> or even a firm plan/ draft charter for one and so, if others
> (particularly the ADs or or potential WG chairs) have strong
> opinions, this would be, IMO, a good time to get them posted.

While I don’t particularly like GitHub interface (I love git itself), I think it is the more commonly used tool these days. (My next choice would be trac on tools.ietf.org)

I can set one up, if there is rough agreement to use GitHub.

Best Regards,
Alexey