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 23:14 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 4B3433A24D3 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 8YIHvKS9UgnR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.135]) (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 474713A24D1 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:14:52 -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 80F20341B2B; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 23:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout2.hostinger.io (100-96-133-111.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.133.111]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8AB37341A1B; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 23:14:50 +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 100.96.133.111 (trex/6.3.1); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 23:14:51 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Madly-Turn: 7a413ffc10b518dc_1622848491206_3467578017
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1622848491206:58092491
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1622848491206
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 7A08E3111561; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 23:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1622848489; bh=LuXNCYad+xuUPrJZX779xvymqE/I/QSOeXPwCymtCTg=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RCPbGbVm4xgNsSZkDaZIRnAbhNXAUTEMK1I5N4lhWc89c2iujAdH508j+8iLU/QMJ V1dS/iAfYOOWqlkMx2XdER4n+y3PP+SW5343bHlrXvji5QNCRa+JlsyPVbCPFDjn3o vx6iZRPVDeZPIXM9vg26Egpva30GWxl1FqEqEtkV+aiaft4GyFsFL5EwUS+IM7hSWw /nFVUIcMf1Mjp71jCLRbr33YaqPDOv2v9xYK9KIhQclp599XhmdMyrWCtkOMb2bptv Kc4H2O6ERNU4mSkkCjKobyU1jTmwAqXtCulawIcEVSFsUJXyNvapvkhlBMZ4p7id84 sUn55caH9bSCA==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <20210525182946.079748B872C@ary.qy> <EFDA46E00EFF0E48802D046A@PSB> <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn> <YK7E1dBKneP8B8Ib@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RZNI90M6SS0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <E23639ADA7487360C9B5A93C@PSB> <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <e9a6ce3e-3f83-a221-d132-fd021a2b5002@dcrocker.net> <F7279E1A825BAAA33F28BA85@PSB>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <a8e45f33-3678-0a30-cca2-7f12c609e232@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:14:43 -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: <F7279E1A825BAAA33F28BA85@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/7Z0Ccb9fXymYIpDo-THaK5SSaiI>
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 23:14:58 -0000

On 6/4/2021 3:21 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Would the EAI WG have made
> different decisions in some cases had there been full
> understanding of what we know now, including what and how people
> would choose to implement?


No doubt you are right.  We didn't have much experience yet, with 
operational enhancement efforts such as ESMTP, RFC2822, MIME, DNSSec, 
DKIM, or much else.


> Otherwise, please explain how additional discussions of the
> wording of the specs -- perhaps as distinguished from sharing
> implementation experience and perspectives -- are helpful.

The current concern I saw is with field experience demonstrating that 
SHOULD is out of sync, with the obvious suggestion that it be changed.

You appear to be asking how it would be helpful to have the 
specification reflect extensive field experience.  But maybe not?



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net