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

Alexey Melnikov <> Mon, 16 March 2020 11:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1120C3A2330; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 04:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Oc9Bc+RJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ZgaBYpYK
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3_15bKAb8Led; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 04:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 238B13A232F; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 04:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684885C034B; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:40:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=t VBO7ucfoyUISRAQeBMx03A0JRi8tiDGStDZwQmrzWQ=; b=Oc9Bc+RJgRHXjf7YA jIba+uMES1O8/NL26JcIHlihW1VVjHMWCX9IiukhqGXZ5LgEQmHY9asd3qyKxlSq aPmjUIpIzp315OAPWI6SDjaIcBH2D84j2Sv49F2GWx/eDaZWbZekihdz07GxUOAG DudfaDL7RiDzYfqKL0g7iTaH2EtFonF0H+M1Pz0RSb9B/hhduwxBn8I5UWK7isNQ k0SuzreGZ8y4HrgIYXPWMsf0teYGWpuMVSShlsa9pzHM0CxNXhonCJ9kXtA2D6tH a3JXYvSyOhmgx2wBp7TXARSwKNby0RLZ5T+I0EOKf6e52xmNsbTlWUq7CnQ+lx9A aH27Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=tVBO7ucfoyUISRAQeBMx03A0JRi8tiDGStDZwQmrz WQ=; b=ZgaBYpYKz07EvAguEwLiIZyRfJF8s8CaEvddhTJoaiLv+08dw4irBtORA irTD1nT244SJELloq53PYd3QIdVUQGDztv5Hs7DMY3SeeLGdMx7/CViuiCVxhx13 8wf1Dg0N6f/gvAwfg26li4rE0jVrp6oK2WsUkXX0d86O6HOXUghOV5uVYzQYcDlJ uJ5cJJ0MFvQzsSR/TuX1E5SC7x6eHPtpoBcieb8nTZuU+gQE93DONbDbn5TpC5y4 5swwKTwXhqVx6Rhg+0WwgQ3vBJN0KD8IUQJUgXQEB8gPmOp6EtDk/F7H1D3ZbRtQ AmgINRsjf4Rj+Y4mm4ZleLKX7hnCQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:rmVvXtTuDXjsZelr0OubG0_eSPMUiqcZvu-YnoILtwA2hOadIpXcRQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudeffedgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhffojgffgffkfhfvsehtqh hmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhgvgigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvuceorggrmhgvlhhn ihhkohhvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhmqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgne cukfhppeehrdejtddrvddtuddrjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:rmVvXpLyEm6n37jJ2quspUDF7QrVN48ZnoP_1Fcb0Z1JTjiel2USBw> <xmx:rmVvXtbO_PEMbAoE0o4uMofX7BgRpFPjKuup3_OEQQsUQBFXeQBnxw> <xmx:rmVvXvi3KvP5hdaR9o8gHgpmofXU1enqWMPqQ6tUhvyKyCf5dbhl6w> <xmx:r2VvXtg3DrvPijYYMPQCwQ1-dFaLm_BGzTIUpaNN82S56Y1x4A2lIg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A931B3280059; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:40:29 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] An Applicability Stateement for core email specifications - and request for AD advice/instructions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:40:35 -0000

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

> On 8 Mar 2020, at 17:49, John C Klensin <> 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

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

Best Regards,