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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:43 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 18BCC3A0B5F for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:43:35 -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 aiiS73ZqDz_1 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA643A0B3F for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595421813; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=G/YZoU9jOCtXIkKmP8SaOzrJgKDFq5xI9x5YsLxAtTQ=; 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=ojOsxoBRr3VYcAVlDGv+a0p0m6N9neAyp1dGMyFgTgow+zctwN8vZqzKZh6oSP4/oD5moB o6zsGW+z/xuVPIubvi3VtURgYJ6t4dXyKkWVgqr7R48jtyz5J/lTz/3VC+HctCU/VFJpAh YpAxB+T5/9RuX650QsBw1I/7DMdx9zs=;
Received: from [172.27.248.213] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Xxg0dAAkBpCf@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:43:32 +0100
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
References: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com> <3b8e5d41-1b61-ca9e-f257-792d3d0f0f6e@dcrocker.net>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <a9915d28-8a32-e5d4-daee-6b32775030f5@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:43:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <3b8e5d41-1b61-ca9e-f257-792d3d0f0f6e@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/JJ9TL2a-uwDNgkLTCK-jHOKJ3cw>
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 12:43:36 -0000

On 22/07/2020 13:27, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 7/22/2020 4:49 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Core Email Applicability Statement: - 35 mins
>
> More time is budgeted for this than for charter discussion.

You will see that various topics are split between RFC 5321 and 
Applicability Statement. We will spend some time at the BOF to discuss 
typical types of issues/suggested changes raised and which ones WG-to-be 
should tackle. This will affect the proposed Charter text, that is why I 
proposed to spend more time on this section. Having said that BOF chairs 
are going to be fluid with time keeping: we might spend more time on 
some topics as long as the [virtual] room is making progress and we 
might cut some discussions short if we are ratholing.

> Applicability Statements have long been popular in the IETF.  They are 
> an obviously good idea.
>
> Less obvious is whether they are worth the effort.
>
> Who uses them and what is the evidence they are worth the effort?

This would be a good topic to raise at the BOF.