IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendix GRe: and pending I-Ds (wasL Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 28 July 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 86E3E3A0E0E for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 r7inagjBbHQR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854FE3A0E5C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1595951223; bh=Fne4iwmK5lkkdf73b2eIRZi0U4z8+UyZskpLkrjkkYA=; l=804; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CsBkP45Sky+k9alvsc5kHgELtppCncp7u8Vl6BctwyIaS+kpVp80KJjLUWZDw+cPH uof/Kj4nN4Q5nWkLNqsBLOLq16ZCS7zVONnAwJ/rH8Z0n14No4waDoUMgsERs8I/RN aLkiW3r3W2THOjEytviWWrDdPTn6kzf9vUkOdNRiD67zG0Fv5CIB9UmHD0VSJ
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.000000005F204877.000007CE; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:47:03 +0200
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20200723185852.43E3C1D6C234@ary.qy> <f68186e9-3996-a412-25ee-2f5edc0e4d6b@isode.com> <717549a3-a94c-0eae-dd28-5a3eb4250805@tana.it> <3E53E48FEE763A817842F2FD@PSB>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <dab5f9da-7a65-ae23-fbf2-91cfad9b960d@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:47:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3E53E48FEE763A817842F2FD@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/jH3lpNGZEZHA4n8JmVJOv32wyoo>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendix GRe: and pending I-Ds (wasL Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF)
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, 28 Jul 2020 15:47:12 -0000

On Tue 28/Jul/2020 13:29:34 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> As far as I can tell, there is little energy for working on RFC5321bis/
> 5322bis and then reissuing them as Proposed Standards.   If the goal is to
> finally get SMTP and the Header specification to Internet Standard and
> definitively (finally) replace 821/822 --something I read into the draft
> charter-- that would be seriously counterproductive.


Agreed.


> If there are specifications in the pipe whose results should really be 
> incorporated into the revised documents, than we should probably postpone
> the WG until those specifications are ready.  If you believe that is the
> case, please make the argument at the BOF.

No, that would be too slow.  A right amount of coordination will suffice :-)


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email