[ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendix GRe: and pending I-Ds (wasL Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 11:29 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@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 B763F3A0B2C
for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 04:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001,
URIBL_BLOCKED=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 g03P2DNPdsGl for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 28 Jul 2020 04:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 7FD6C3A0B2B
for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 04:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB)
by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>)
id 1k0Nnh-0006xs-2T; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:29:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:29:34 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3E53E48FEE763A817842F2FD@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <717549a3-a94c-0eae-dd28-5a3eb4250805@tana.it>
References: <20200723185852.43E3C1D6C234@ary.qy>
<f68186e9-3996-a412-25ee-2f5edc0e4d6b@isode.com>
<717549a3-a94c-0eae-dd28-5a3eb4250805@tana.it>
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: john-ietf@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/ucT1BKBucMdOWAVjLsGALFnHUGE>
Subject: [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 11:29:44 -0000
Ale, Two small comments... --On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:17 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: > Nevertheless, some coordination is needed. The discussion in > Section 7.1 of RFC 5321, "Mail Security and Spoofing", needs > revision. This question is already addressed in Appendix G.4, > "Originator, or Originating System, Authentication" of John's > I-D. As I mentioned on-list when what is now Appendix G was started and ;east until there is a WG, I'm trying to remain strictly neutral about the items listed there. So the listing of a particular topic doesn't mean it has been addressed, at least as I would use that term, only that someone has raised the issue and I wrote it down. The question as to what should be done about it and, if anything, where is a potential BOF discussion topic and eventually up to the WG. > For RFC 5322, Dave's Author: and Sender: I-Ds might happen to > become RFCs before rfc5322bis. Can they be considered in that > case? Certainly, it won't make sense to publish contrasting > specifications, such as, for example, the number of email > addresses allowed in a From: field. No opinion, right now, about what should be done. But a procedural point is probably relevant: while the draft charter talks about things that could be discussed with its scope, actual incorporation of those features into 5322bis would require that they be published as Proposed Standards, wait some months, and then that the specifications be implemented and show "widespread deployment of multiple implementations from different code bases" [RFC 6410]. As far as I can tell, there is little energy for working on RRC5321bis/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. 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. john
- [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Michael Richardson
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Michael Peddemors
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Dave Crocker
- [ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendix GR… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendi… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF Hector Santos