Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Thu 26/Dec/2019 20:09:01 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
> If anyone has more or less broad issues that should be
> identified in that section that have not come up either in
> errata or recent discussions, mentioning them RSN so I can add
> them to the list would be helpful.  The list so far is:
> 
>    Appendix G.  Other Outstanding Issues
>      G.1.  IP address literals
>      G.2.  Meaning of "MTA" and Related Terminology
>      G.3.  Originator, or Originating System, Authentication


I have a couple of topics that I think it's worth discussing:

    G.4.  Reshape Section 3.9 so that ancillary specs can define:
          G.4.1 Mailing lists, including newsletters, and,
          G.4.2 Email address portability, by forwarding.

    G.5.  Clarify where the protocol stands with respect to
          * submission on port 587
          * submission on port 465
          * TLS relay on a port different from 25 (whenever)

I take the occasion to recall that I have copied some annotations from YAM to:
https://hyp.is/QQqD1iW3Eeq0pQfOL0z_1Q/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-00
(See https://web.hypothes.is/start/)

Further annotating rfc5321bis-00 can help staying focused, IMHO.


Best
Ale
--