Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be

Alexey Melnikov <> Fri, 24 July 2020 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351B93A0AF6 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4HLCorD2Vwb for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBDA3A0AF5 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595597496;; s=june2016;; bh=iY2Cvf6y8pwPs5vMRCVIvRuS9BpV5ZWHQ56pGT/i8N8=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ZB3n43gwi8qbjsiIWIzPgbHvEj0bX+1U9I83o8V5CxhMqn7pAV6S+P6TOgTgnHQ0sdK4s7 v2nq1Y9sfEO/6fN5rh/vWmV/oLHunSoizAa3rx000i5dvCGW14WsfQ6mSaYf1lIyAtoFc1 J5AehLYB/T8hPWlP/yQQeunlJ1Rr1D8=;
Received: from [] ((unknown) []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:31:36 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
To: John C Klensin <>,
Cc: Tim Wicinski <>, Seth Blank <>, ietf-smtp <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:31:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:31:40 -0000

Hi John,

On 22/07/2020 14:19, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 05:31 -0700 Dave Crocker
> <>  wrote:
>> On 7/22/2020 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>> In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word
>>> "that" as  feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more
>>> times.
>> Just to confirm, I assume you mean:
>>   > This working group will conduct that limited review and
>> revision, ...
>> I was trying to preserve as much of the original text as I
>> could and didn't even think about this.  In context it works,
>> given the paragraph that precedes it.  But it certainly isn't
>> essential.  Also, it's worth making the paragraph stand on its
>> own.
>> So, perhaps...
>>        This working group will conduct a limited review and
>> revision to the base email specifications, and will publish
>> new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status,
>> per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to corrections
>> and clarifications only. In addition to processing existing,
>> verified errata and errata marked as "held for document
>> update", the WG may address newly-offered errata.  However, no
>> new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for
>> inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are
>> already published as RFCs.
> Shouldn't that be "standards track RFCs"?   As I read 2026, even
> as modified by 6410, there are no other possibilities consistent
> with publishing 5321bis and 5322bis as Internet Standards.

I thought this point needed a bit more discussion and I thought I could 
find some IETF Consensus Informational RFCs that might be of interest. 
But I ended up finding none :-). A couple of RFC that I thought might be 
Informational and might be of interest are RFC 3848 ("ESMTP and LMTP 
Transmission Types Registration") and RFC 6729 ("Indicating Email 
Handling States in Trace Fields"). The former is already a Draft 
Standard and the latter is Proposed.

Best Regards,