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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 54D483A0919 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4LIylU7pr4FZ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (bsa3.jck.com [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4A93A0913 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jyEeK-0002Bk-Ve; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:19:08 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:19:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <0D99C2A62806652EB50E1BBD@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <27410164-6b23-7623-4255-b7306b6d41da@dcrocker.net>
References: <ead2de74-68be-144c-1a6a-4d55e3ab59c2@isode.com> <d9373795-7119-1ada-acc5-d564bf7ff793@dcrocker.net> <CADyWQ+F+Q_-9fQfSr2MAieLi82PTGr0r+jPPWs5LLygYHROzcA@mail.gmail.com> <27410164-6b23-7623-4255-b7306b6d41da@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ShFwsG5yXKsg7zAdfz7I_20Mn9Y>
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 13:19:15 -0000


--On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 05:31 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 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 RFCs.

Shouldn't that be "standards track RFCs"?   As I read 2026, even
as modified by 6410, there are no other possibilities consistent
with publishing 5321bis and 5322bis as Internet Standards.  

   john