Subject: [ietf-smtp] Proposed Charter for EMAILCORE WG-to-be

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:07:19 +0100

Hi all,

My apologies for not sending this earlier.

This is the draft charter I propose for EMAILCORE WG-to-be:

---------

The base documents defining Internet messaging — colloquially, email -- 
are RFC 5321 (protocol) and RFC 5322 (format). These are revisions and 
consolidations of prior documents and were last published in 2008. They 
currently sit at Draft Standard status, a status that actually no longer 
exists according to current IETF procedure.

Since then some errata have accumulated (both submitted to IETF and 
reported directly to editors), as well as comments made about these 
documents not necessarily describing best email practices. There is now 
exists sufficient critical mass to undertake a limited review and 
revision of these documents for the purpose of advancing them to 
Internet Standard status.

This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, and 
publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status, per 
RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to include corrections and 
clarifications only, such as verified errata and errata marked as "held 
for document update", however the WG is not limited to only addressing 
submitted errata. No new protocol extensions or amendments will be 
considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they 
are already published as RFCs.

The working group will also work on Applicability Statement/BCP in 
parallel with 5321bis and 5322bis, to capture relationships to other 
widely deployed work (for example recommended extensions) and current 
email practices.

Upon completion of these three milestones, and assuming the participants 
still have the momentum to do so, the working group may undertake 
similar review and revision of other email specifications. Such future 
work will require rechartering.

---------

The current plan for the EMAILCORE BOF is to triage existing errata on 
RFC 5321/5322 (to see what kind of issues were raised), discuss exact 
scope of the effort and finish with reviewing the above proposal at the 
end of the EMAILCORE BOF.

Please let me know your comments/thoughts.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:16:42 -0700

> are already published as RFCs.

Possible refinement to the wording of this paragraph:

This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, and 
will publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard 
status, per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to corrections 
and clarifications only. In addition to processing existing, verified 
errata and errata marked as "held for document update", the WG may 
address newly-offered errata.  However, no new protocol extensions or 
amendments will be considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis 
documents, unless they are already published as RFCs.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:22:58 +0100

On 22/07/2020 13:16, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status, 
>> per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to include corrections 
>> and clarifications only, such as verified errata and errata marked as 
>> "held for document update", however the WG is not limited to only 
>> addressing submitted errata. No new protocol extensions or amendments 
>> will be considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, 
>> unless they are already published as RFCs.
>
>

I think this is a good suggestion. So I like your version.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:23:55 -0400

In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word "that" as
feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more times.   His other edits
(on the run on sentence) are spot on.

Also, first paragraph:
s/exists according to current IETF procedure/exists according to the
current IETF procedure/

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:26:45 -0400

In the last paragraph, would it harm to drop "and assuming the
participants still
have the momentum to do so" ?  Recharting will require reevaluation anyway.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:23 AM Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> per

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:31:55 -0700

On 7/22/2020 5:23 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more times.

Just to confirm, I assume you mean:

 > This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, ...

I was trying to preserve as much of the original text as I could and 
didn't even think about this.  In context it works, given the paragraph 
that precedes it.  But it certainly isn't essential.  Also, it's worth 
making the paragraph stand on its own.

So, perhaps...

      This working group will conduct a limited review and revision to 
the base email specifications, and will publish new versions of these 
documents at Internet Standard status, per RFC 6410. The limited review 
is restricted to corrections and clarifications only. In addition to 
processing existing, verified errata and errata marked as "held for 
document update", the WG may address newly-offered errata.  However, no 
new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for inclusion 
into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are already published as 
RFCs.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:34:10 -0400

Dave

Correct. Thanks for reading my intentions.  It does work the more times I
read it.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:36:42 -0700

On 7/22/2020 5:26 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> participants still have the momentum to do so" ?  Recharting will 
> require reevaluation anyway.

Good point.  But it doesn't go far enough.  Rather, drop the entire 

> work will require rechartering.

Typically, text like this in a charter is gratuitous, since it 
explicitly has nothing to do with work that is currently within scope. 
It's only saving grace can be indirect, to aid in the definition of what 
is out of scope for current work.  But that's best achieved by simply 
saying what is out of scope.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:40:26 +0100

On 22/07/2020 13:36, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> Upon completion of these three milestones, and assuming the 
>> participants still have the momentum to do so, the working group may 
>> undertake similar review and revision of other email specifications. 
>> Such future work will require rechartering.
>
> It's only saving grace can be indirect, to aid in the definition of 
> what is out of scope for current work.  But that's best achieved by 
> simply saying what is out of scope.

Yes, happy to drop this.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:42:25 -0400

Thanks Alexey.

I personally like to leave a few small grammar or editorial issues in my
proposed charters, so the IESG will feel vindicated in requesting edits.

tim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:19:03 -0400

--On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 05:31 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> In the paragraph Dave edited, I for some reason find the word
>> "that" as  feeling out of place. I need to read it a few more
>> times.
> 
> I was trying to preserve as much of the original text as I
> could and didn't even think about this.  In context it works,
> given the paragraph that precedes it.  But it certainly isn't
> essential.  Also, it's worth making the paragraph stand on its
> own.
> 
> So, perhaps...
> 
>       This working group will conduct a limited review and
> revision to the base email specifications, and will publish
> new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status,
> per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to corrections
> and clarifications only. In addition to processing existing,
> verified errata and errata marked as "held for document
> update", the WG may address newly-offered errata.  However, no
> new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for
> inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are
> already published as RFCs.

Shouldn't that be "standards track RFCs"?   As I read 2026, even
as modified by 6410, there are no other possibilities consistent
with publishing 5321bis and 5322bis as Internet Standards.  

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:42:01 -0400

--On Wednesday, 22 July, 2020 13:22 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> This working group will conduct that limited review and
>>> revision, and  publish new versions of these documents at
>>> Internet Standard status,  per RFC 6410. The limited review
>>> is restricted to include corrections  and clarifications
>>> only, such as verified errata and errata marked as  "held
>>> for document update", however the WG is not limited to only 
>>> addressing submitted errata. No new protocol extensions or
>>> amendments  will be considered for inclusion into 5321bis
>>> and 5322bis documents,  unless they are already published as
>>> RFCs.
>> 
>> 
>> This working group will conduct that limited review and
>> revision, and  will publish new versions of these documents
>> at Internet Standard  status, per RFC 6410. The limited
>> review is restricted to corrections  and clarifications only.
>> In addition to processing existing, verified  errata and
>> errata marked as "held for document update", the WG may 
>> address newly-offered errata.  However, no new protocol
>> extensions or  amendments will be considered for inclusion
>> into 5321bis and 5322bis  documents, unless they are already
>> published as RFCs.
> 

If you use that, two suggestions (one a repeat of one made
earlier):

(1) In the last few words, change to "published as standards
track RFCs", because that is what 2026/6410, AFAICT, require.

(2) Be careful about newly-offered errata.  The obvious (at
least to me) reading of that is that the way to get something
onto the WG agenda is to submit an erratum through the RFC
Editor system and have author(s) and AD(s) evaluate it and agree
on a status before the WG can proceed to decide whether to
consider the item.  Seems to me that would be a considerable
waste of time for no good purpose (unless, of course, the
submitter gets points somewhere for posting errata).  So some
clarification to the effect that newly-discovered errors in the
document can be brought to the WG mailing list for review may be
in order.

best,
   john

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:31:35 +0100

Hi John,

On 22/07/2020 14:19, John C Klensin wrote:
>> revision, ...

I thought this point needed a bit more discussion and I thought I could 
find some IETF Consensus Informational RFCs that might be of interest. 
But I ended up finding none :-). A couple of RFC that I thought might be 
Informational and might be of interest are RFC 3848 ("ESMTP and LMTP 
Transmission Types Registration") and RFC 6729 ("Indicating Email 
Handling States in Trace Fields"). The former is already a Draft 
Standard and the latter is Proposed.

Best Regards,

Alexey