Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF

Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
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 D221E3A0AE5 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAY_BE_FORGED=1, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (4096-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=aegee.org
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 02LsNKWYJULL for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.aegee.org (mail.aegee.org [144.76.142.78]) (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 4D0513A0AE0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/06MCICne1221605; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov@aegee.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aegee.org; s=k4096; t=1595420294; i=dkim+MSA-tls@aegee.org; bh=BZrCi3gqPDRCDdzDZXx+4Xq13GbBGV6lVU+V1hFsf6w=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From; b=RgKWOzjlg9uPlBfZ6lxjuqTbINsvyepiEluGKrYY2v2s2RBJf+Ozu9Me3nsZlfTtF t03v5+ZAXo9nPlNtFvpN3a7zip22g/noY2+m3g8lvRMKLFsDUAnoc1zzl963Op8r7K 0dwG1SCNKqZ6I9i0g/2mJdXRdQaXjWIKLDzkcO/V5CcF8aV35uiNm8LWAKvLi8cMqz onOCyqeYbo+DGAjjJvPSj64P8qy344ZnEiUKSEB1PxHtLGrAbZIn6Rx9Ra+T8+5/60 OnuXkn3cnKbIyucx0sanlSkaYYIEKB2J9f9tzy+pA3JUeyQ9yW1sWnf9L4rZLvMl5L G0U38G+hdTyrvBPJaUSmV4JZPVMp7duBwQDoWtY2MpAqbPWcYZEyosuJ3Oi65d74Mu BoiKrp+ijQTGMbmQnqWcoWs8qsiwnQa/B/sIqSrZCh8aTjuDGGxjimoB4jmhrNdCtC oaYte8LmVwmspDWPpoDPXtUjgu7pDKx0Bq3gfaHstModivIu2TpAId1Sfv/E+Ne36E VNdsjQNCGPttQeqTl2lqhRw57pUd5h8orQ++SQQrUHcsjfzdFKsR3wnU+Lq4Fjm/fc FpkYSI7z6w7X7R1TRZ0UFVEVI0t+THC/m62w9bCPjSwcyAEB9B+MuIm5i526k4bVow qsnUbUzzYfUMjh0S0Bym12Ts=
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/06MCICne1221605; dkim=none
Received: from [192.168.1.106] (87.118.146.153.topnet.bg [87.118.146.153] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.aegee.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 06MCICne1221605 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:18:13 GMT
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:18:06 +0300
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com>
References: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----25FRCMKDZXQE8OZQ0KXWF4RJQI8GOU"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
Message-ID: <1DD51B1C-03DE-457C-BD7B-F3E4E05EA692@aegee.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/I_rQHO43BcCaVHcgTZKFrbCCHzc>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:18:20 -0000

Hello,

> G.6.  Clarify where the protocol stands with respect to submission and TLS issues
>  1.  submission on port 587 or port 465

RFC 8314 says in the Introduction:

“This memo now recommends that:

o Connections to Mail Submission Servers and Mail Access Servers be made using "Implicit TLS" (as defined below), in preference to connecting to the "cleartext" port and negotiating TLS using the STARTTLS command or a similar command.”

My reading is thay the above text clarifies to prefer 465 over 587.

Greetings
  Дилян

На 22 юли 2020 г. 14:49:46 GMT+03:00, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> написа:
>Revision of core Email specifications (emailcore) agenda for [virtual] 
>Madrid.
>
>
>WEDNESDAY, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
>11:00-12:40 (1 hour 40 mins)
>
>
>Agenda bashing, introduction, meeting format (chairs) -  5 mins
>Problem statement (chairs) -  5 mins
>
>Review of proposed changes to "Internet Message Format" (RFC 5322)
>draft-resnick-rfc5322bis - 15 mins
>
> Issue with ABNF for "field": https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2950
> Disallow empty quoted string:
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3135
> Header field name length limit:
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5918
>
>
>Triage of raised issues for "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol" (RFC 5321)
>draft-klensin-rfc5321bis - 10 mins
>
>Example topics (we tackle as many as we have time for)
>
>  G.9.  Revisiting Quoted Strings
>
>  G.7.11.  Bring back 1yz reply codes?
>
>Core Email Applicability Statement: - 35 mins
>
> G.6.  Clarify where the protocol stands with respect to submission and
>        TLS issues
>
>    1.  submission on port 587 or port 465
>
>    2.  TLS relay on a port different from 25 (whenever)
>
>  Suggested SMTP Extensions:
>   G.8.  Enhanced Reply Codes and DSNs
>   8BITMIME
>   SMTPUTF8 (a.k.a. EAI)
>
>  Terminology:
>   G.3.  Meaning of "MTA" and Related Terminology
>   G.7.2.  SMTP Model, terminology, and relationship to RFC 5598
>   G.11.  SMTP Clients, Servers, Senders, and Receivers
>
>  G.1.  IP Address Literals in EHLO, MAIL or RCPT
>
>  G.7.3.  Resolvable FQDNs and private domain names
>
>  G.10.  Internationalization Consideration section needed?
>
>
>High level discussion of how the proposed WG going to decide
>which issues to tackle (chairs) -  5 mins
>
>Charter Review and discussion (chairs) - 25 mins
>
>
>
>Documents:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-rfc5322bis/?include_text=1https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5322&rec_status=15&presentation=tablehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis/?include_text=1https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5321&rec_status=15&presentation=tablehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-email-core-as/?include_text=1
>
>---------------
>If we go too quickly through triage of some issues, here are some
>others 
>that
>we can discuss:
>
>G.5.  Remove or deprecate the work-around from code 552 to 452
>
>   The suggestion in Section 4.5.3.1.10 may have outlived its
>usefulness
>    and/or be inconsistent with current practice.  Should it be removed
>    and/or explicitly deprecated?
>
>G.7.1.  Issues with 521, 554, and 556 codes
>
>    See new Section 4.2.4.2.  More text may be needed, there or
>   elsewhere, about choices of codes in response to initial opening and
>    to EHLO, especially to deal with selective policy rejections.
>
>_______________________________________________
>ietf-smtp mailing list
>ietf-smtp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp