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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 22 July 2020 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 6B0643A0970 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 GmPbmkuFz9sG for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 7CD483A095D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 06MD9wN1023348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:09:59 -0700
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <579f408c-ed7e-9dbe-f626-f0dab2380d13@isode.com> <3b8e5d41-1b61-ca9e-f257-792d3d0f0f6e@dcrocker.net> <a9915d28-8a32-e5d4-daee-6b32775030f5@isode.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <0104b45b-a335-d596-1883-83ca0f2424a0@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:07:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a9915d28-8a32-e5d4-daee-6b32775030f5@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/yULqK-mVLhY3zOQ1S8lssQeYGGU>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:07:30 -0000

On 7/22/2020 5:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Applicability Statements have long been popular in the IETF.  They are 
>> an obviously good idea.
>>
>> Less obvious is whether they are worth the effort.
>>
>> Who uses them and what is the evidence they are worth the effort?
> 
> This would be a good topic to raise at the BOF.


Mailing lists are generally viewed as the best place for raising and 
discussing issues.

Meetings have very limited time, and -- worse -- the real-time 
(spontaneous) nature of meetings does not permit sustained consideration.

So I'm raising the question now, hoping for responses /before/ the 
meeting, as input to the meeting.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net