Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 18 February 2020 19:12 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 343461200C3 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:12:39 -0800 (PST)
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 PHXZEK7TOe9m for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9CD12008B for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1j48IN-000FAu-KG; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:12:35 -0500
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:12:30 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <A154AA91085706BE2792213F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <eb8a1c75-294b-6deb-3bb2-68ac723543d5@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAOEezJTLEzpDUivS50xUvQtQbNNyJXVKk29Q=c4QRaxgRvTxBw@mail.gmail.com> <972BC556117E20BE16D62E29@PSB> <7c7bd9e2-ffc8-c307-898a-2c827c72695f@tana.it> <eb8a1c75-294b-6deb-3bb2-68ac723543d5@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
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/_abs2-mzc3ynoF0Uxk68uIbRjp0>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:12:39 -0000
Dave, I agree with your logic. I just don't see it as being as simple as all that, primarily because I don't see a way to alter only "minor" details while ignoring major issues if there are any of those -- and some have asserted that there are. Disclaimer: as editor, I'm willing to do whatever the consensus is about this, even if that requires holding my nose. In principle, I'm fine with "a cleanup". The difficulty I see is that the language in RFC 2026 seems very clear to me: "no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it" without an explicit IESG waiver for Proposed Standards; not even an exception procedure for Internet Standard. Unless you and Barry (and/or the other ADs) see a way to waive that section of 2026 and intend to do so, I believe the only option is for a WG to go through the list of issues in Appendix G of draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-02 and determine, for each one, whether it is "cleanup" (including technical omissions) or new work that can be handled elsewhere (or not at all). I think (or at least hope) that some things on that list can be quite quickly disposed of as inconsistent with a cleanup. As examples, pushing into authentication or TLS issues apprear to me to rather clearly on that list but others may disagree. Some of the other items listed may be less clear. But I see no way to separate what is, or is not, "cleanup" by writing general scope statements: sooner or later, either someone is going to assert the authority to make command decisions and people are going to decide to accept that or "we" are going to have to go through that list one item at a time. And, of course, there is nothing particularly special about that list: if someone identifies an issue tomorrow that is significant enough to be a "known technical defect", I see no way to bar that issue from the discussion. best, john --On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 07:20 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > Folks, > > After some discussion with Barry, what seems to have been > missing is a clear statement of needs and goals. Many > different approaches to revision are possible and reasonable. > So the reasons for choosing one needs to be clear. > > > Logic for a limited effort: > > > The current, well-established, core specifications for > email are at a lower standards level than what the > (realistically) long-obsolete versions. The goal is to > (finally) establish the later versions as full standards (and, > I assume, declare the earlier versions as obsolete.) > > Any substantive revision to the current specifications > runs the risk -- actually the likelihood -- of resulting in > the output being labeled at a /lower/ standards level than it > current has, thereby exacerbating the original issue. > > Hence the revision effort needs to be constrained to > altering only essential, /minor/ details. A cleanup exercise, > if you will. > > > > Yes? > > d/
- [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length John C Klensin
- [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was address … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email address maximum length Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Brandon Long
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Pete Resnick
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision, was addr… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision Michael
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Email standard revision Dave Crocker