ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-smtp] An Applicability Stateement for core email specifications - and request for AD advice/instructions

2020-03-08 12:49:59
(personal opinion, not wearing any particular hat)

Hi.

Discussions on this (ietf-smtp) list since before IETF 106 and
the informal proposals to try to revise RFCs 5321 and 5322 and
get them done before now (!), have convinced me, and I think at
least some others, that an Applicability Statement or BCP --one
that can cover current advice for application and use of
provisions of the core protocols and related ones -- is going to
be key to an actual revision effort for 5322 and (especially)
5321 being a matter of weeks or a few months rather than years
of work.

If we are going to continue discussions in anticipation of an
eventual WG, I think it would be helpful to get an outline of
what might be in, or evolved into, such an A/S or BCP posted
soon.  It could act, not only as a placeholder but a place to
keep (historically archival, because that might be important)
notes of what we expect to put there, partially so that we could
put pointers and references into 5321bis/5322bis.

Its presence as a placeholder could also help with constructing
a draft WG Charter.

I guess I am, reluctantly, willing to sign up to produce a first
cut at such an (-D or an outline of one (although certainly not
before tomorrow's posting deadline). But my condition for doing
so would be a volunteer for co-author who would be willing to
take over the work and maintain the document.  That would be a
good opportunity for someone new at this work, possibly more
involved in day-to-day operations of large email systems, and
with a different perspective on things than I have.  So, unless
others object or the ADs have conflicting advice, volunteers
sought.

On a similar note, I have been maintaining a list of possible
issues and changes to 5321 in Appendix G of 5321bis.  I'm
willing to continue to do that, but it may be that either a
formal tracker or an IETF-sanctioned Github repository would be
a better way to manage and facilitate discussion on those topics
and where they belong.  Other than a personal distaste for
trying to track long and complex discussions that I cannot read
in real time in Github, I have no preference among the three
options.  But I don't think setting something up requires a WG
or even a firm plan/ draft charter for one and so, if others
(particularly the ADs or or potential WG chairs) have strong
opinions, this would be, IMO, a good time to get them posted.

best.
   john

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>