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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 25 May 2021 18:29 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 F2D263A18A3 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:29:54 -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=tnIm7uhx; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=BfqNJ4Yt
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 0H3mX0oiWPUD for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:29:49 -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 79FA33A18A2 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 64394 invoked from network); 25 May 2021 18:29:47 -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=fb88.60ad421b.k2105; bh=1oMTYsUI7GcZcF3/YECpXIqzfIQrYOu24T55a/MhHi4=; b=tnIm7uhxWiIkSclXUAjSONHWEm7FXnM76NNehqHU2Uwr1zf7NdI+4xlGohSry0EKtLKEfOL+aEQhTzlr51Sn0S0SF0VfwTwN4V80Si0cpzcZsx6h+1cxYan3hSbL60mBHrxJmP3ilKxGGhw4L4ARtSbLmiBUH6AZ2hK0sBpmKHCMTIgo1uGyWyZhJpqCPDK9vq7jT6oSJV2eDuK/TJmbHgvLTVJaP7EPgsn7qieU61l6H1Rz3+XeXPDc+lAXSA3JxbCpocptTX+41QDL8ZPVbMzU6ebMBN/iTFl7YZobXUrlweU/Nl7WQlYSyP0qLgpRrI42fJVVpEBtlsiyvJVipQ==
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=fb88.60ad421b.k2105; bh=1oMTYsUI7GcZcF3/YECpXIqzfIQrYOu24T55a/MhHi4=; b=BfqNJ4YtQI16wCpaZO7qs5SxoHz6MD/tLfFvhpPqZ0gIlYWmmv3TUbdgur+qZj4MGiPlllAPKqkCDJkyEzZSl4hVNNK4KICtbO2QiPdjCzgO/f8Sh8mLP1q1GL2VuwnA6LYU10WXKyac68JNhOI8I9dWmmnXzZwSG63n4agBVicAmyQcyguEKq4rR/4P+ZU9YVhUDLXC1g8M5mQCKNgh/qnYfMlzyed3POjG292aimDRvuhHE5x4zhLp4jvwqeYk5v7dPjdANjoxvySvifJSA5HxXtJVCSIIyemjpQUZaraQvOtxk91u0O7csKX1z+taO/BpHyFR9b3GgkATqnbL5w==
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; 25 May 2021 18:29:46 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 079748B872C; Tue, 25 May 2021 14:29:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 25 May 2021 14:29:45 -0400
Message-Id: <20210525182946.079748B872C@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <4ED5FF03CF3B91767AD87B8A@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/trL2bGrm_34nhWqLbSZdlqjCNeM>
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: Tue, 25 May 2021 18:29:55 -0000

It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
>It would certainly be appropriate to either revise the spec or,
>better from my point of view, create a short applicability
>statement that explains the reasoning behind the SHOULD and the
>circumstances under which it would be sensible to ignore it. ...

>The thing that sometimes gets lost in "let's make the spec
>conform to what implementations are doing" discussions in this
>area is that there is an assumption behind the whole collection
>of SMTPUTF8 specs, namely that the world really wanted non-ASCII
>addressing and header field values. ...

This may seem like splitting hairs but there is a difference between
header fields that users see and fields that they don't.  Message-IDs
are still generally ASCII in EAI messages, and I don't see any
benefit from making the domain names in trace headers U-labels rather
than A-labels.

I'm not getting any pushback on Return-Path which really does need
to be UTF-8 is it's an EAI address.  I think the few MTAs that put
a FOR clause in the Received header put EAI addresses there, too.

R's,
John