[ietf-smtp] Request for a WG -- open letter to the ART ADs
John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 05:35 UTC
Return-Path: <klensin@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 2557512006B; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 jjlbjlVugmaM; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:34:58 -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 D31351200B4; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1ih5VZ-000A09-DN; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:34:57 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:34:51 -0500
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: art-ads@ietf.org
cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Message-ID: <3DED8B966217EBC1E57CD3EB@PSB>
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: klensin@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/kogxLPbQfBdB4a9Y96EOXmS6xRE>
Subject: [ietf-smtp] Request for a WG -- open letter to the ART ADs
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, 17 Dec 2019 05:35:00 -0000
For better or worse, the discussions on the ietf-smtp list about IP address literals, the 552 -> 452 workaround, and possibly the current semi-firm requirement that a server accept up to 100 RCPT commands, make a rather strong case that 5321 is in need of some work (much as I'd prefer it to be otherwise). The list of issues in draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-01 includes additional topics, some of which might well be equally controversial. My feeling a need to post that "Editor's policy note" on the 15th in response to requests that I interpreted as asking that I make changes on my own initiative also rather strongly suggest that a WG is needed. In that absence of a WG, I'm extremely likely to get stubborn and insist that only an AD can make the consensus call on anything that does not have unanimity (unless, under the emerging new regime, the IETF LLC's Exec Dir can assess "mood" as a valid alternative for rough consensus). I assume none of the three of you have spare time for that. So, consider this a public, bottom-up (or at least editor-up) request for a WG to address revisions to RFCs 5321 and 5322 and, as discussed on this list, to develop an Applicability Statement on Internet Mail issues that addresses, at least, what implementations should be doing rather than what the protocol Technical Specifications allow. Readers of the list should consider this note a request (personal and bottom-up, not official in any way) for volunteers to develop a charter. I suspect Pete and I could put something together but that things would be more successful if the core or the charter came from people whose recent implementation or operational experience leads them to see a need for change. If anyone (including Barry and Alexey) has notes or a preliminary draft to contribute to that effort I'm confident it would be welcome and would save time. reluctantly, john
- [ietf-smtp] Request for a WG -- open letter to th… John C Klensin