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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 08 March 2020 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 517703A0E1E; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xBVCAxDxYsAC; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (bsa3.jck.com [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8651B3A0E1D; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jB03S-000Gya-6Q; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 13:49:34 -0400
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 13:49:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
cc: art-ads@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Message-ID: <AB1A97E4B60AFB6A17DDF756@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/CE3UokOBf8Yo-MrEbNYCEacdQQo>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] An Applicability Stateement for core email specifications - and request for AD advice/instructions
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: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 17:49:38 -0000

(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.

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). 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.

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.

best.
   john