--On Friday, February 1, 2019 12:26 +0100 Alessandro Vesely
<vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
On Thu 31/Jan/2019 04:46:02 +0100 John C Klensin wrote:
I think those kinds of questions are going to require a WG
rather than, e.g., Pete and I getting together and putting
drafts together with while everyone will be comfortable. YMMD
but be careful what you wish for or wish the ADs to wish for.
+1, it would be about time!
Write a proposal. Possibly propose a WG-forming BoF for either
Prague (cutoff date is today) or Montreal (FWIW, I won't be in
Prague but will probably be in Montreal - no idea about Pete's
schedule). If possible, make a list of things you think need to
be changed or at least examined for changes.
As you are doing that, note that after IETF LC on what became
5321 closed there were demands from an AD or two to make
editorial and organizational changes. Some of those changes
would have required completely reorganizing the document.
Partially because it was recognized that such a reorganization
would require starting the approval process over and probably
discussion in a WG, compromises were reached that involved a few
small changes and probably satisfied no one. IMO, we should not
try to move forward unless those issues can be settled (or
preventing from arising again) very early in the process. So
something along those lines should be reflected in your
proposals as well. I don't remember there being similar
problems with 5322, but you should check.
FWIW, I personally believe that it would be a good idea to
completely reorganize and rewrite 5321 because the process by
which we folded 821, some topics covered by 1123, and the
extensions work together created a document that is hard to
follow as well as being too long. While I think we could patch
5321 (as we patched 2821 to get it) without needing a very
intense review process, I assume that reviewing a reorganization
and rewrite and making sure we didn't inadvertently introduce
errors, requirements, or other substantive changes for which
there was no consensus would almost certainly require an active
and committed WG.
Also, either
* Think about doing formal implementation reports on 5321 and
5892 and, if any of the changes you think need to be made are
new and substantive rather than, e.g., clarifications or unused
features that should be deleted, make sure I-Ds are written,
posted, processed into Proposed Standards (and reflected in
those implementation reports) before you suggest we open 5321/
5322.
--or--
* Figure out how to convince the community that it would be
worthwhile to produce Proposed Standard 5321bis / 5322bis with
the clear expectation that we would want to be working on
Internet Standard 5321ter / 5322ter six months or a year after
we got finished with the "bis" versions. As you can probably
guess, I'd be strongly opposed to that for multiple reasons, but
I'm just one voice.
As I said, be careful what you wish for.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp