Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Tue 18/Feb/2020 16:20:36 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
> After some discussion with Barry, what seems to have been missing is a clear
> statement of needs and goals.  Many different approaches to revision are
> possible and reasonable.  So the reasons for choosing one needs to be clear.
> 
> 
> Logic for a limited effort:
> 
> 
>     The current, well-established, core specifications for email are at a lower
> standards level than what the (realistically) long-obsolete versions.  The goal
> is to (finally) establish the later versions as full standards (and, I assume,
> declare the earlier versions as obsolete.)
> 
>     Any substantive revision to the current specifications runs the risk --
> actually the likelihood -- of resulting in the output being labeled at a
> /lower/ standards level than it current has, thereby exacerbating the original
> issue.
> 
>     Hence the revision effort needs to be constrained to altering only
> essential, /minor/ details.  A cleanup exercise, if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes?


I agree.  I don't think a cleanup, like e.g. the one you proposed[*], would
revert rfc5321bis to proposed standard.  However, I'm not clear on how that
works.  Certainly, rfc2821 was reverted to proposed standard, but I wasn't
there and I don't know who/how decided to label that I-D to a lower standard.

BCP 9 is not so precise:

   [I]f the specification has been changed very significantly, the IESG
   may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re-
   entering the standards track at the beginning.
                        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.2

Since there are quite some issues to be clarified[†], I think the new WG will
need some detailed guidelines about what would be a very significant change.


Best
Ale
-- 

[*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/K1MpIrubUzq6-90Ikdl4yuh7n3o

[†] I annotated some YAM issues at hypothes.is.  Additions welcome.
https://hyp.is/QQqD1iW3Eeq0pQfOL0z_1Q/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-00