[ietf-smtp] Issueds listed in 5321bis Appendix GRe: and pending I-Ds (wasL Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Ale,

Two small comments...

--On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:17 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
<[e-mail]> 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