Subject: [ietf-smtp] Request for a WG -- open letter to the ART ADs

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:34:51 -0500

For better or worse, the discussions on the ietf-smtp list about
IP address literals, the 552 -> 452 workaround, and possibly the
current semi-firm requirement that a server accept up to 100
RCPT commands, make a rather strong case that 5321 is in need of
some work (much as I'd prefer it to be otherwise).  The list of
issues in draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-01 includes additional
topics, some of which might well be equally controversial.  

My feeling a need to post that "Editor's policy note" on the
15th in response to requests that I interpreted as asking that I
make changes on my own initiative also rather strongly suggest
that a WG is needed.  In that absence of a WG, I'm extremely
likely to get stubborn and insist that only an AD can make the
consensus call on anything that does not have unanimity (unless,
under the emerging new regime, the IETF LLC's Exec Dir can
assess "mood" as a valid alternative for rough consensus).  I
assume none of the three of you have spare time for that.

So, consider this a public, bottom-up (or at least editor-up)
request for a WG to address revisions to RFCs 5321 and 5322 and,
as discussed on this list, to develop an Applicability Statement
on Internet Mail issues that addresses, at least, what
implementations should be doing rather than what the protocol
Technical Specifications allow.

Readers of the list should consider this note a request
(personal and bottom-up, not official in any way) for volunteers
to develop a charter.  I suspect Pete and I could put something
together but that things would be more successful if the core or
the charter came from people whose recent implementation or
operational experience leads them to see a need for change.  If
anyone (including Barry and Alexey) has notes or a preliminary
draft to contribute to that effort I'm confident it would be
welcome and would save time.

reluctantly,
    john