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

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 22 July 2020 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFF53A0B35 for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlvZ7EAwF9GD for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12DC83A0B4D for <>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 06MCYa2A020057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:34:36 -0700
To: Tim Wicinski <>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <>, Seth Blank <>, ietf-smtp <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:31:55 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:32:09 -0000

On 7/22/2020 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word "that" as 
> feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more times.

Just to confirm, I assume you mean:

 > This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, ...

I was trying to preserve as much of the original text as I could and 
didn't even think about this.  In context it works, given the paragraph 
that precedes it.  But it certainly isn't essential.  Also, it's worth 
making the paragraph stand on its own.

So, perhaps...

      This working group will conduct a limited review and revision to 
the base email specifications, and will publish new versions of these 
documents at Internet Standard status, per RFC 6410. The limited review 
is restricted to corrections and clarifications only. In addition to 
processing existing, verified errata and errata marked as "held for 
document update", the WG may address newly-offered errata.  However, no 
new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for inclusion 
into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are already published as 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking