Re: [ietf-smtp] Proposed agenda for EMAILCORE BOF

Alexey Melnikov <> Fri, 24 July 2020 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1575F3A08A6 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:35:36 -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 0mq4Ide36yG6 for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4703A0AFA for <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1595597734;; s=june2016;; bh=3uIdFijfdl/QAAu1wpWlf6h3uBqM4BQ2wBWc9TBkLD4=; 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=hwwKQsE7TR7l9RgwiDUfDwW16MVX0Wh7qj1wmDrQzPwPd2uAzFUDP+WinFJE52tJ44i6Kq mKaV/5B8oQz3DkT9QwmJ0Bh+fPWBC+IBq+dz5lY6HI64/sTvDOpRQL87YYsUag3oW8lOEf 1wnPX8lb7YOuV85Xah9P5LafFqJyULM=;
Received: from [] ((unknown) []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:35:33 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
To: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:35:33 +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 agenda for EMAILCORE BOF
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 13:35:36 -0000

Hi Keith,

On 23/07/2020 05:14, Keith Moore wrote:
> I would like it to be clarified as to whether the purpose of the BOF 
> is to bash the charter for the proposed EMAILCORE WG.
> If the purpose of the EMAILCORE WG is indeed to bring the current 
> message format and SMTP specifications to Full Standard,
> I further propose that any features not in those specifications should 
> be out-of-scope for the WG, unless perhaps any new features are (a) 
> already at Proposed Standard; (b) widely implemented enough to also be 
> considered for Full Standard; and (c) necessary for inclusion in the 
> core specifications in order for the complete set of revised 
> specifications (core + new features) to qualify for Full Standard.

I think you are basically making the same comment as John.

> (I suppose if someone wants to make a case that the core email 
> specifications are not suitable for advancement to Full Standard but 
> instead should be recycled at Proposed, while the charter is being 
> bashed would also be the time to make that argument.)
> I would therefore propose that any features that don't meet those 
> criteria either be ruled out-of-scope for the BOF, at least deferred 
> until the WG charter has been bashed. 
Yes, we will have a change to discuss this when discussing the proposed 
> Perhaps if there's time remaining it would make sense to use that time 
> to discuss features that couldn't be taken up by the working group.
> What I don't think makes any sense at all, at least given the current 
> IETF standards process, is to combine a discussion of adding new 
> features, with a discussion of advancement to Full Standard.


Best Regards,