Internet Message Format
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA also has a question about this document.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

IANA Question --> IANA understands that this draft is intended to obsolete RFC5322. IANA notes that there are many references to RFC5322 in registries other than the two mentioned in Section 8 of the current draft. Could a subsequent version of this draft be clear about whether the future [ RFC-to-be ] is to be added to the existing references, or if [ RFC-to-be ] should replace RFC5322 in those references?

The references involved include:

6 in https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/
1 in https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/
32 references in https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/
1 in https://www.iana.org/assignments/mrcpv2-parameters/

First, in the Provisional Header Field Repository in the Message Headers registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/

a new field is to be added to each of the existing registrations. The field name is:

Trace

and the field should be left blank for all of the existing registrations in this registry.

Second, in the Provisional Header Field Repository also in the Message Headers registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/

a new field is to be added to each of the existing registrations. The field name is:

Trace

and the field should be left blank for all of the existing registrations in this registry with the following exceptions:

Header Field Name: Date
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.1 ]

Header field name: From
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.2 ]

Header field name: Sender
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.2 ]

Header field name: Reply-To
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.2 ]

Header field name: To
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.3 ]

Header field name: Cc
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.3 ]

Header field name: Bcc
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.3 ]

Header field name: Message-ID
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.4 ]

Header field name: In-Reply-To
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.4 ]

Header field name: References
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.4 ]

Header field name: Subject
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.5 ]

Header field name: Comments
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.5 ]

Header field name: Keywords
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s):[ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.5 ]

Header field name: Resent-Date
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-From
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-Sender
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-To
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-Cc
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-Bcc
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-Reply-To
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: obsolete
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 4.5.6 ]

Header field name: Resent-Message-ID
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standar
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: no
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.6 ]

Header field name: Return-Path
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: yes
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.7 ] Related information [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis]

Header field name: Received
Applicable protocol: Mail
Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Trace: yes
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be; section 3.6.7 ] Related information [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis]

We understand that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-04-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis@ietf.org, emailcore-chairs@ietf.org, emailcore@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, todd.herr@valimail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Internet Message Format) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Revision of core Email
specifications WG (emailcore) to consider the following document: - 'Internet
Message Format'
  as Internet Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-04-29. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax
  for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the
  framework of "electronic mail" messages.  This specification is a
  revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 5322, itself a revision of
  Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, all of which supersede Request For
  Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
  Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating
  incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

RFC5322bis Document Shepherd Write-up

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The emailcore working group’s charter was to perform a “limited review and
revision” of documents that describe a widely installed and used protocol.
Participation in the emailcore working group was generally limited to a
dozen or so individuals, owing in large part to the group’s work being
focused on revising fifteen year old documents that are themselves
third-generation revisions of originals first published in 1982.

When reviewing this document, it is strongly suggested that you refer to:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5322&url2=draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy about particular points, although quite a lot of polite,
thorough discussion about the details of specific sections, in particular
section 3.6.7, Trace Fields.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No known threats of appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There are countless implementations of the contents of the document. This
document describes the format of internet email messages.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

While many technologies use Internet message format, both inside and outside
the IETF, review beyond those who participated in the WG was not considered
necessary. We had a good cross-section of people in the WG, and the task was
to preserve compatibility with all existing implementations.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No MIBs, YANG, new media type, or URIs in this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The ABNF rules in the document have undergone thorough manual review by members
of the working group during this cycle, as well as during each publishing cycle
for previous revisions of this document (RFCs 822, 2822, and 5322). Tim
Wicinski reported running the ABNF through an old formal ABNF checker.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

There was an extensive discussion on the list about the use of the terms
ASCII” and “US-ASCII”. The experts seemed satisfied that the use of the
terms in this document is reasonable and correct. No other “common issues”
appeared problematic.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of RFC publication being requested is Internet Standard. RFC 2026,
Section 4.1.3, Internet Standard, reads:

  A specification for which significant implementation and successful
  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
  referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
  technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
  protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
  community.

This document (5322bis) updates the definition of the syntax for text
messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of
"electronic mail" messages a definition that was first published by the
IETF in RFC 822 in 1982. It cannot be argued that electronic mail
does not have significant implementation and successful operational
experience. Futhermore, the fact that electronic mail in the form of
mailing lists serves as the foundation for much of the work that IETF
Working Groups accomplish seems to stand as prima facie evidence that
electronic mail provides a significant benefit to the Internet community,
to say nothing of electronic mail's role as a communication tool for
individuals across the globe.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the
best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.

All reasonable efforts have been made to remind authors of IPR disclosure
obligations. No required disclosures exist to be filed.

Do note that the BCP *78* template used in this document is the pre-5378
template. Given the age of some of the text in this document, it is impossible
to assure that all rights have been obtained to be able to claim full
permission.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
[idnits][8] tool is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None exist at this time.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Normative and Informative references are properly classified as such.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

ANSI 3.4 1986 is not officially available freely, but it is findable easily
on the web.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5322, and is noted as such.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA Considerations section has changed only slightly from what was
published in RFC 5322, which this document seeks to obsolete. It requests
a change to the structures of the Permanent Header Field and Provision
Header Field Registration Templates in RFC 3864, adding an additional
field called “Trace”. It further specifies that this new field be added
to the Return-Path and Received header fields defined in RFC 3864.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

RFC5322bis Document Shepherd Write-up

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The emailcore working group’s charter was to perform a “limited review and
revision” of documents that describe a widely installed and used protocol.
Participation in the emailcore working group was generally limited to a
dozen or so individuals, owing in large part to the group’s work being
focused on revising fifteen year old documents that are themselves
third-generation revisions of originals first published in 1982.

When reviewing this document, it is strongly suggested that you refer to:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc5322&url2=draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy about particular points, although quite a lot of polite,
thorough discussion about the details of specific sections, in particular
section 3.6.7, Trace Fields.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No known threats of appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

There are countless implementations of the contents of the document. This
document describes the format of internet email messages.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

While many technologies use Internet message format, both inside and outside
the IETF, review beyond those who participated in the WG was not considered
necessary. We had a good cross-section of people in the WG, and the task was
to preserve compatibility with all existing implementations.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No MIBs, YANG, new media type, or URIs in this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The ABNF rules in the document have undergone thorough manual review by members
of the working group during this cycle, as well as during each publishing cycle
for previous revisions of this document (RFCs 822, 2822, and 5322). Tim
Wicinski reported running the ABNF through an old formal ABNF checker.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

There was an extensive discussion on the list about the use of the terms
ASCII” and “US-ASCII”. The experts seemed satisfied that the use of the
terms in this document is reasonable and correct. No other “common issues”
appeared problematic.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of RFC publication being requested is Internet Standard. RFC 2026,
Section 4.1.3, Internet Standard, reads:

  A specification for which significant implementation and successful
  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
  referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
  technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
  protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
  community.

This document (5322bis) updates the definition of the syntax for text
messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of
"electronic mail" messages a definition that was first published by the
IETF in RFC 822 in 1982. It cannot be argued that electronic mail
does not have significant implementation and successful operational
experience. Futhermore, the fact that electronic mail in the form of
mailing lists serves as the foundation for much of the work that IETF
Working Groups accomplish seems to stand as prima facie evidence that
electronic mail provides a significant benefit to the Internet community,
to say nothing of electronic mail's role as a communication tool for
individuals across the globe.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the
best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.

All reasonable efforts have been made to remind authors of IPR disclosure
obligations. No required disclosures exist to be filed.

Do note that the BCP *78* template used in this document is the pre-5378
template. Given the age of some of the text in this document, it is impossible
to assure that all rights have been obtained to be able to claim full
permission.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
[idnits][8] tool is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None exist at this time.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Normative and Informative references are properly classified as such.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

ANSI 3.4 1986 is not officially available freely, but it is findable easily
on the web.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5322, and is noted as such.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA Considerations section has changed only slightly from what was
published in RFC 5322, which this document seeks to obsolete. It requests
a change to the structures of the Permanent Header Field and Provision
Header Field Registration Templates in RFC 3864, adding an additional
field called “Trace”. It further specifies that this new field be added
to the Return-Path and Received header fields defined in RFC 3864.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/