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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 13:22 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 22/07/2020 13:16, Dave Crocker 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.
> 
> I think this is a good suggestion. So I like your version.

If you use that, two suggestions (one a repeat of one made
earlier):

(1) In the last few words, change to "published as standards
track RFCs", because that is what 2026/6410, AFAICT, require.

(2) Be careful about newly-offered errata.  The obvious (at
least to me) reading of that is that the way to get something
onto the WG agenda is to submit an erratum through the RFC
Editor system and have author(s) and AD(s) evaluate it and agree
on a status before the WG can proceed to decide whether to
consider the item.  Seems to me that would be a considerable
waste of time for no good purpose (unless, of course, the
submitter gets points somewhere for posting errata).  So some
clarification to the effect that newly-discovered errors in the
document can be brought to the WG mailing list for review may be
in order.

best,
   john