Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 711CA3A0B15 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 6pui4SXaTkh8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53083A0B0C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595421115; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=5NoD5NtO4XXKYjtPqYgw1O2ujpxrWmN5DYaAYS1saIs=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Lwo4ChUtlUfLnHKUYwbQHJ5k/1chuSo6VbJD6hsnYDKQwdFUeJeIQDnDjMD0utmTAVh9pW YsYbNi0jznr8b8iOQAEsp+3Cb+ApfJw9dl1nKl71y536HSw2FRE4Uu9/hXognVOA8vOn52 /YdfcMDvyzxhwLU1Wn8XgCFUCGvACxc=;
Received: from [172.27.248.213] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <XxgxuQAkBqt5@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:31:54 +0100
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, E Sam <winshell64@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <81c2a19c-f19e-b495-3441-22c2a112037c@linuxmagic.com> <52D9A14B4CDD14BB4C97C355@PSB> <CAKFo7w=9_eZda47ZMUv_NE9iN1FEnGM7m3nUFy3_Wq4se+W8XQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <7346f59f-dc5d-4d1c-df92-8f41949a3f82@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:31:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <DE8B2C33275660E19FFA513C@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/IeJ_XvrASwq-CsOVg2xxS7jprYM>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, should list name change?
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 12:31:57 -0000

On 18/07/2020 20:15, John C Klensin wrote:

> You may want to have a look at the draft agenda, now posted at
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-emailcore-00,

Thank you for the introduction, John.


The above was updated a bit:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-emailcore-01

> and noting that the example topics for rfc5321bis are references
> to Appendix G of draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-03 (the agenda sort of
> says that, but, IMO, it is easy to miss).  It is vaguely
> possible that a new version of the I-D will be posted before the
> BOF meets, but it is thoroughly unlikely that Appendix
> names/numbers will change.
>
> Alexey or Seth may be able to add to that, especially if you
> have specific questions.
I don't have much to add at this point. Seth and I will send the 
conference call link for the BOF once we know it.
> Beyond the agenda, "emailcore" seems to be a title or framework
> for a lot of different ideas that may not have focused or
> converged yet.  The purpose of a BOF is to move that process
> along.
>
> best,
>    john
>
>
> --On Saturday, July 18, 2020 14:55 -0400 E Sam
> <winshell64@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm out of the loop of the plans for the (future?) emailcore
>> working group
>>
>> Any links where I can catch up and read more about this before
>> the IETF 108 meeting (if I can make it of course)
>>
>> YES i DuckDuckGoed some information about it but I am still
>> out of the loop a little bit
>>
>> Thank you all
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:13 PM John C Klensin
>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Friday, July 17, 2020 14:57 -0700 Michael Peddemors
>>> <michael@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure what normally happens, but it might be confusing.
>>> Independent of "normal", the name and mailing address of this
>>> list is known by email developers and operators all over the
>>> Internet.  It also consolidates some prior lists specifically
>>> associated with mail headers, MIME, and non-ASCII addresses
>>> and headers (and maybe others, probably including the lists
>>> for the DRUMS and YAM WGs).   Changing its name (effectively
>>> killing the list and starting another) would be disruptive in
>>> the extreme.
>>>
>>> Perhaps "emailcore" should be given a list of its own, but I
>>> think that would not be helpful either.
>>>
>>>> "Email Core" would have a wider scope, and it might be
>>>> confusing if the list name was limited to 'smtp'.
>>> Consider it a historical artifact and, like WG names (and
>>> corresponding mailing list) that are chosen more for cuteness
>>> than actual semantic value, accept it and move forward.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will leave it to the BOF Chairs and/or ADs to comment on the
>>> rest of this but my understanding is that they want to keep
>>> the scope of "emailcore" as narrow as possible, at least
>>> initially, rather than having it expand into "any email topic
>>> that would be worth addressing".
>>>
>>> Speaking only for myself, I note that the IETF has tried very
>>> hard over the years to stay out of MUA design and issues.
>>> Perhaps it is time to change that and take on at least some
>>> MUA requirements (work is badly needed, IMO, in the non-ASCII
>>> addresses and header space although I don't know if the IETF
>>> as the right expertise to do it) but it would be a rather
>>> large step.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Suggestion for topic for this group as well:
>>>>
>>>> Unifying all the 'autodiscover' and 'autoconfig' methods
>>>> currently in place.. email client developers have now a very
>>>> convoluted set of requirements in order to find the
>>>> 'recommended' settings for that domain or ISP etc..
>>>>
>>>> There are several independent databases out there, eg
>>>> Apple's own, the ISPDB, and even some of Microsofts' own
>>>> email clients no longer follow traditional methods of
>>>> lookups.. It is a bit of a mess, that maybe the IETF would
>>>> like to weigh in on?
>>> best,
>>>     john
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ietf-smtp mailing list
>>> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>> _______________________________________________
>> ietf-smtp mailing list
>> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp