Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 26 May 2021 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 41DE23A1A05 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2021 19:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=wp8zGbUb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=mS+CkIFa
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 x3tQTweHmcBn for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2021 19:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 6EA7D3A1A03 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2021 19:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 75804 invoked from network); 26 May 2021 02:45:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1281a.60adb651.k2105; bh=/EEtdt0mCCBuIiaqk7U0FvQGcdy1hQMsJyTp6ENAlfE=; b=wp8zGbUbaM35t9ZptrfdWPR8n1rJS6QXtGk8udMMC9tMagNhXMv35A7LzlnEGeO9SZAoHAFTHrB1dmBUmHp6BA3NcrZBgVMNMmXrBhkEnOysLB2W2F7/YXrTGLp4XzphCh6EuIm+wjRhSGYSdpTqWMt+m0B58+nETy3iGU6C7cJnyem+zJQ1XzzNzaug2imVsZMoVYb6jhESDDqjjKjVwhXl14hGTOY37BtLfLAQUsRHdTVOTTGIPx/ZgwJACQa0RgbZiv5xYeyiQ27vX14Hy7PFnPn6+QXFpn2+cl7gDDSV/iGC422B7gHxI8kFkQnw9VVvH03sJpH96DY8wN3XNg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1281a.60adb651.k2105; bh=/EEtdt0mCCBuIiaqk7U0FvQGcdy1hQMsJyTp6ENAlfE=; b=mS+CkIFa/XNwD7ZJ/IEyP2bPLQF/mZC0ByMuTdQU6ch2VWxa1mgrkigYzDdeQiw21U4vQXTcLlwAeGdMLCjwIt+8JEtjACcwKica+dkJVeQeGgCaIf/2vu2WP7Nv2TdS5P7PJtug+XT4Xi1shJ7i8OcvFBtFxg00oAuOQiX1fCAOZbe9A1SuUzoYZH3Qnd/jcKtCit2bOPMerWCYiyVC2psOve0jYgebHuLwixr8frkAU7QrVmg7ZT/zBJ2fDu1o/qQc16vmBpMWy/Yt72vdZVTpkBdJsIK+y4gDeRsQPLkNV8yYqtmiKbDQT11pT1UB3mmfHICjWNzvJo5fJFFF8A==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 26 May 2021 02:45:36 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5340A8BD35D; Tue, 25 May 2021 22:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 25 May 2021 22:45:34 -0400
Message-Id: <20210526024536.5340A8BD35D@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <DC10732A3EA64E1140BDE349@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ovb9YwArJAZ7ra4k-01yT_1mwuY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?
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: Wed, 26 May 2021 02:45:45 -0000

It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
>The other reasons, and the more important ones, are completely
>pragmatic.  First, given the heavy dependencies of the SMTPUTF8
>documents on RFCs 5321 and 5322 and that the latter are being
>revised, I think it would not be helpful to revises the SMTPUTF8
>documents until after we have finished with the revisions of the
>base documents. ....

Oh, absolutely.  If it seemed like I wanted to revise 6531 right now,
I don't.  It was more about is it worth making a list of things we
might want to revise later.