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

[Дилян Палаузов <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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=1
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5322&rec_status=15&presentation=table
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis/?include_text=1
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5321&rec_status=15&presentation=table
> https://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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp