Subject: [Emailcore] WG Action: Formed Revision of core Email specifications (emailcore)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:04:33 -0700

A new IETF WG has been formed in the Applications and Real-Time Area. For
additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Revision of core Email specifications (emailcore)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Proposed WG

Chairs:
  Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
  Seth Blank <[email-masked]>

Assigned Area Director:
  Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>

Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
  Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
  Murray Kucherawy <[email-masked]>

Mailing list:
  Address: [email-masked]
  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emailcore
  Archive: ​https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emailcore/

Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/emailcore/

Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-emailcore/

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 no longer exists
according to the current IETF procedure.

Since then some errata have accumulated (both submitted to IETF and
reported directly to editors), as have comments made about these
documents not necessarily describing best email practices. There is now
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 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, with a strong emphasis on keeping
these minimal and avoiding broader changes to terminology or document
organization. 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 IETF Stream RFCs and are at
sufficient maturity level to move to Internet Standard.

The working group will also work on an Applicability Statement in
parallel with 5321bis and 5322bis, to capture relationships to other
documented and widely deployed work (recommended extensions, transport
security and other issues from the UTA working group's output, and such)
and current email practices. 5321bis and 5322bis will be submitted for
publication before this document is finalized, and the "bis" documents
will have priority for the working group's attention until they are
finished.

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

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:40:03 +0200

Hi all,

> are RFC 5321 (protocol) and RFC 5322 (format).
> 
> Internet Standard status, per RFC 6410.

Great move!

> revision of other email specifications.  Such future work will require

Could MIME RFCs 2045 and 2047, used for e-mails, be similarly revised to 
become Internet Standards?

This way, we shall afterwards begin to move NNTP and Netnews article 
format RFCs to the Internet Standard maturity level!  (a dozen RFCs, 
starting with RFC 3977 and 5536).

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« J'aime les calculs faux car ils donnent des résultats plus justes. »
   (Jean Arp)

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:02:44 +0100

Hi Julien,

On 27/09/2020 14:40, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> Could MIME RFCs 2045 and 2047, used for e-mails, be similarly revised 
> to become Internet Standards?
>

Once we are done with the current set of 3 documents, MIME RFCs will 
likely be at the top of the list of documents to revise. But in the 
meantime, we should concentrate energy on 5321bis and 5522bis.

Best Regards,

Alexey