IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:40 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 7A5183A0B27 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:40:44 -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 7OW48m7BjgHZ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488C23A0B20 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595421642; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=ph8wPhlQBk1hZk5FpTXONTeRUBe+jw/7l11tRbrYAU4=; 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=VrUvg6s1i8a79DOIl0+7b0y6nHgcjm/+moYnYhTf5KJlyfYliD4bPnjKZoSZp94kQx95t3 5HclwEo7Eq3RlXmcg3O7cZNZz4UKprnwq0CapnTDh9PGqqB22zQK3A13iibAAWV8hiH5zn xx8sam5ZwB2sG1Co1huOHMTJHRZ2oj0=;
Received: from [172.27.248.213] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <XxgzyQAkBjeS@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:40:42 +0100
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <ead2de74-68be-144c-1a6a-4d55e3ab59c2@isode.com> <d9373795-7119-1ada-acc5-d564bf7ff793@dcrocker.net> <CADyWQ+F+Q_-9fQfSr2MAieLi82PTGr0r+jPPWs5LLygYHROzcA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Eyqsg-hyTR2fdDV0Eq1niUQL=zZ6vGt0Wu8-FhTbB5rg@mail.gmail.com> <d1872a9c-c07e-4650-352a-f66d5c49af8a@dcrocker.net>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <81d55e9d-97f8-d7b6-d6e6-16a4706b84c7@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:40:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <d1872a9c-c07e-4650-352a-f66d5c49af8a@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/MvM6nsf4O2S3fvhKUriSmZ2soY8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be
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 12:40:45 -0000

On 22/07/2020 13:36, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 7/22/2020 5:26 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>> In the last paragraph, would it harm to drop "and assuming the 
>> participants still have the momentum to do so" ?  Recharting will 
>> require reevaluation anyway.
>
> Good point.  But it doesn't go far enough.  Rather, drop the entire 
> paragraph:
>
>> Upon completion of these three milestones, and assuming the 
>> participants still have the momentum to do so, the working group may 
>> undertake similar review and revision of other email specifications. 
>> Such future work will require rechartering.
>
> Typically, text like this in a charter is gratuitous, since it 
> explicitly has nothing to do with work that is currently within scope. 
> It's only saving grace can be indirect, to aid in the definition of 
> what is out of scope for current work.  But that's best achieved by 
> simply saying what is out of scope.

Yes, happy to drop this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email