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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

As I'm nominally on vacation for this past and the upcoming week
(where "vacation" is a relative term), I'm not keeping up with this
discussion as I might have done.

But I'd like to throw in my opinion about how we should handle the
IP-literals question:

I'd like to see us keep to a plan of folding in errata, doing some
sensible reorganization, otherwise minimizing changes, and
republishing 5321 with a target of "Internet Standard", which it
clearly is.

I'd like to see us then address some of these other issues in a
separate document, which can go out as BCP or Proposed Standard
(applicability statement) -- and there are other options as well --
that would aim to give normative advice about these sorts of things
but that is not part of the Internet-Standard level spec at this
point.

Is there substantial objection to taking that approach?

Barry, doing AD-like things...

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> My impression is that discussions are now either going around in
> circles or have deteriorated into a couple of people repeating
> themselves in attempts to convince, or at least explain to,
> others.  I wouldn't presume to try to stop those discussions,
> but want to see if we can move forward.
>
> That impression may be wholly incorrect but I think it is, or
> should be, clear to everyone that we've significantly departed
> from the fairly narrow questions of whether it is appropriate
> for IETF servers to reject any mail session opening attempt that
> uses an IP address literal in the EHLO command and what 5421
> actually says (and was intended to say) about acceptance or
> rejection of address literals.
>
> In the hope that it will help us make progress, at least toward
> getting some focus on getting a WG put together and/or clarity
> from the ADs about how (or if) they would like to move forward,
> I've worked up a new draft of rfc5321bis that adds a appendix
> (G) about outstanding issues identified in the last several
> weeks to the appendix about issue identified in errata (H.1 in
> the -02 version, formerly G.1 in the -01 one).  It does _not_
> propose solutions, only identifies topics that need discussion
> about whether or not we should deal with them and, if so, where.
> I will probably post that version tomorrow or over the weekend.
> 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
>
> thanks,
>    john
>