[Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter
Hans-Joerg Happel <happel@audriga.com> Tue, 16 May 2023 18:04 UTC
Return-Path: <happel@audriga.com>
X-Original-To: sml@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sml@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B300C169530 for <sml@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jJ8c0gZBuvVb for <sml@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.audriga.com (mail.audriga.com [176.221.42.35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC3EBC16952C for <sml@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.audriga.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CA9A1E2 for <sml@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2023 20:04:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.audriga.com
Received: from mail.audriga.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.audriga.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUyWmU3tBiqF for <sml@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2023 20:04:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.10.147] (ip-109-090-161-242.um36.pools.vodafone-ip.de [109.90.161.242]) (Authenticated sender: happel@audriga.com) by mail.audriga.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57972A0C4 for <sml@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2023 20:04:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d12e4fa7-2cf2-9d87-3dac-f7592d743ce0@audriga.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 20:04:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: sml@ietf.org
From: Hans-Joerg Happel <happel@audriga.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sml/_uWIum9SwACTGRdwUCss0dRfBSI>
Subject: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter
X-BeenThere: sml@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Structured Email <sml.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sml>, <mailto:sml-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sml/>
List-Post: <mailto:sml@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sml-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sml>, <mailto:sml-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 18:04:20 -0000
Hi all, for those of you not aware, the materials (minutes/chat/video) from the Structured Email BoF at IETF 116 are available online at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/sml/meetings/. One outcome was to narrow done the list of issues discussed in the second part of the BoF and come up with a charter draft for further discussion. Points mentioned in the draft are supposed to capture basic building blocks, while points that address more specific and advanced topics (in particular dealing with multiple MUAs, message updates, message responses to structured email, hiding attachments meant for automation and data extraction) have been excluded and could still be addressed once initial work has been done. Please find the draft below. Comments are welcome! Best, Hans-Joerg ======================================= ## Draft charter A large number of emails today is sent by computer programs. Those messages often have a transactional nature, such as notifications, confirmations, or receipts. Based on templates, their content typically has a certain structure, even if written in natural language. Solutions like the Sieve filtering language [RFC5228] help users to leverage such patterns in email structure to process emails more efficiently. More recently, approaches to annotate text-based information on the Web with a machine-readable variant [Schema.org] have been applied in the email domain [Email markup]. While some major vendors support this approach, adoption is still rather low and vendor implementations differ in various aspects. The Structured Email (SML) working group will provide specifications for annotating text-based email content with a machine-readable version. It will initially focus on specifying: * The overall approach of using RDF/Schema.org in email messages to annotate email content, as it is used by vendors in current practice * How machine-readable content relates to the text-based version of content * Which RDF encoding to use in which part of email messages * The usage and sharing of RDF vocabulary for actual annotation * Extensions that enable client-side tools to efficiently determine if machine-readable annotations are present * Security and trust recommendations to prevent abuse of structured email These specifications are supposed to build upon the Internet Message Format [RFC5322] and related documents. Structured email needs to ensure downwards-compatibility with legacy email clients in the sense of allowing users to consume email content, even if a machine-readable variant exists in parallel. The following points are out of scope for the working group: * Modeling RDF vocabulary for particular use cases or domains. Exceptions might only be made for vocabulary directly related to the email domain itself. If required, such work should be carried out in cooperation with appropriate bodies such as the Schema.org W3C Community Group. * The working group will not prescribe how structured email is processed in emails clients, with the exception of security recommendations as mentioned before. Specifications such as adding support for structured email to the Sieve language could however be addressed by a rechartering, once initial work has been finished. The working group aims to coordinate efforts with at least these related groups as required: * The IETF EXTRA and JMAP WGs, which deal with most of the IETF's email activities * The Schema.org W3C Community Group * The M3AAWG Dynamic Email Security SIG Milestones: * (to be added in later stage of process) =======================================
- [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Hans-Joerg Happel
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Dave Crocker
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Dave Crocker
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter John Levine
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Hans-Joerg Happel
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Hans-Joerg Happel
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Hans-Joerg Happel
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Dave Crocker
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Hans-Joerg Happel
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Dave Crocker
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Dave Crocker
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter John R Levine