EMAILCORE

EMAILCORE January 2025 Interim meeting (online)

Friday 17 January 2025
16:00 (UTC) 90 minutes

Chairs: Alexey Melnikov, Todd Herr

• WG Status

  • 5322bis done

  • 5321bis-39 post IESG review

    • DISCUSS points for today's meeting

  • A/S-13 need to discuss remaining issues and get ready for WGLC

• Action Item for chairs - Double check with Deb (Sec AD) and Roman to
  make sure they're onboard with Paul's DISCUSS to make the A/S
  reference normative

  • Per Pete: Need to note DOWNREF in 5321bis to proposed standard
    (A/S)

• Volunteers to review Appendix E ("changes from RFC 5321")

  • Timeframe 1-2 weeks
  • Herr and Resnick volunteer

• STARTTLS requirement

  • Targeting WGLC for A/S in a week or two, assuming authors can
    make a few minor edits
    • Murchison thinks he can have edits done by the end of
      January, maybe
    • Melnikov recommends to make the reference to the A/S in
      rfc5321bis normative, and focus on getting the A/S ready for
      WG last call

• IANA Registration Models for SMTP Extensions

  • Drop Informational/BCP from Model 1 (basically go back to
    "Standards Track or IETF approved Experimental" as in RFC 5321),
    but adding explanatory text to Model 2 that FCFS can be used in
    any Informational/Historic RFCs.

• Can we drop "Legacy" registration model?

  • Clarify that "Legacy" cannot be updated

• IANA comments from Amanda re: technical depth of language in IANA
  section

  • Add cross reference as suggested on slide

• IANA comments from Amanda re: separate "Contact" and "Change
  Controller" field for SMTP extensions

  • Change as suggested on slide

• "Description" vs. "Behavior and Impact" fields in the SMTP extension
  registration template

  • Merge into one

• IANA Comments from Amanda re: RFC Editor changing present tense to
  past tense

  • For all subregistries that don't already mention the RFC that
    created them:
    • Make assessment as to what the implications are to mention
      RFC 5321, which is supposed to be obsoleted by 5321bis
    • Alternative - Say "This registry was created by a prior
      document"

• IANA Comments from Amanda re: Fields for Registry Entries

  • Remove "unless" clause from document, to clarify that IANA
    doesn't need to do any research in order to fix existing
    registrations.
  • Only changes that come in RFCs can update existing "IETF"
    entries

• IANA Comments from Amanda re: updating existing references to 5321
  from other registries to instead point to 5321bis

  • Proceed as suggested on slide

• IANA Comments from Amanda re: Registry Header Information Changes

  • Add words to this section encouraging people to look at model 2,
    instead of saying that the registration procedure is a
    "variation of FCFS".

• Orie's Comments (3.5.3 and 4.5.1)

  • Discuss on mailing list

• Orie's Comments (7.1)

  • Discuss on mailing list

• Orie's Comments (7.4)

  • Take it to the mailing list

• Interim in February?

  • Week of February 10 is the target for next one, so that we can
    really concentrate on A/S

• Full chat transcript follows

Pete Resnick
11:02
I'm not getting audio. I may reboot and return to you shortly.
Kenneth Murchison
11:03
good morning/afternoon
Paul Wouters
11:10
same i just popped in
Pete Resnick
11:12
You can always nag me, FWIW. I was going to look anyway, but I'm not the
brightest bulb on all of the SMTP issues.
Murray Kucherawy
11:13
Belated Good Morning!
I have to drop at the half hour.
Pete Resnick
11:17
John drinks from the empty half of the glass. Alexey (along with me)
always drink from the full half.
Murray Kucherawy
11:17
It's possible I will have some time to contribute to the AS after 122.
Murray Kucherawy
11:18
(energy to edit, review, comment, etc.)
Pete Resnick
11:18
Paul, have you looked at the current AS at all?
Paul Wouters
11:22
not sure if that is true. I bounced a mail received by paul@nohats.ca
from there using "bounce" to gmail and they refused my msg
John Klensin
11:23
I think it is clear that there are several people who will complain and
who have already started.
Pete Resnick
11:23
There are definitely places that require SPF or DKIM.
Pete Resnick
11:24
Whether that means we have to write about that is a different question.

Murray Kucherawy
11:24
Just to throw some numbers around, I would estimate DKIM/SPF are
required by a handful of operators, some large. But virtually any
serious operator expects STARTTLS these days.
I guess it depends on whether we think the former will trend upwards.
Todd Herr
11:25
"requirement" for doing SPF/DKIM is an elastic term, even for Google and
Yahoo
Pete Resnick
11:27
There may be a day where it is more required than it is today, but
that's down the line.
Murray Kucherawy
11:28
Dropping in about two minutes. Will follow up with you as needed about
the IANA stuff; I still need to read the issue and discussion so far.
Todd Herr
11:31
@pete Correct
Pete Resnick
11:33
Can someone reconstitute the discussion that made us allow for
Informational?
Pete Resnick
11:43
So we are dropping Informational from Model 1, but adding explanatory
text to Model 2
Alexey Melnikov
11:44
Yes!
Todd Herr
11:44
"model" == "bullet"?
Pete Resnick
11:44
Section 8.1.1.1 actually uses the terms "Model"
Paul Wouters
11:45
yes i can
Pete Resnick
11:45
Alexey lost sound
Barry Leiba
11:47
We hear you.
Pete Resnick
11:47
We hear everyone (including Alexey)
We heard that.
Pete Resnick
11:48
John has a nice clicky keyboard!
Paul Wouters
11:49
i am hopping to other things too. just wanted to be here for the iesg
discuss
John Klensin
11:49
As I have been able to reconstruct it from ancient notes (we are talking
about nearly 40 years now), Alexey's comment is key -- these were
incorporated into Sendmail but never documents or registered for the
community. Postel therefore registered them on his own initiative to
note the name and provide a "if you have questions, go ask him" pointer

Pete Resnick
12:16
(If you must, let's make whatever frustration about "IANA" instead of
about particular people.)
John Klensin
12:34
Thanks Pete, but this person made it about her by contradicting the one
official IANA review we have.
Pete Resnick
12:37
That strikes me as something that (as you indicated) should be said to
those who run the relationship with IANA and not in the WG discussion.
John Klensin
12:39
which I was discouraged from doing in real time because it would
completely derail the document until IANA cleared its "not OK"
Pete Resnick
12:40
+1 to John
(regarding the interim)