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
- [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG… Alexey Melnikov