Subject: [Emailcore] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-emailcore-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 16:40:50 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-emailcore-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-emailcore/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Roman notes, it would be good to have formal milestones in place.

Also, I presume that the applicability statement will include recommendations
for transport security for email; it might be worth mentioning that explicitly to
forestall questions about SMTP (in)security.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 02:52:52 -0400

Ben,

Since no one else has responded, you comment seems relevant, and
there has been no traffic on the emailcore mailing list since
IETF 108 other than a meeting request announcement and no review
on that list of the charter the IETF is reviewing.... but
speaking strictly as an interested individual and giving my own
opinion.

When discussions of producing revisions of 5321 and 5322 started
(informally, IIR, close to a year ago), it became clear that
opening those documents would lead to a rash of requests (and
probably flame wars) about things the should be stuff into them,
including some things that were either immature or
controversial.  There has also been rough consensus, repeated in
the WG efforts that produced 2821/2822 and 5321/5322, to avoid
doing a complete rewrite of 5321 (it and 2821 were ugly merges
of several predecessor documents, not just 821) because doing so
would be very likely to introduce hard-to-catch errors.  As
document editor the last two times around, I fear that adding
anything else of substance would make things worse.    The
applicability statement idea, which is at least partially my
fault, was a very pragmatic mechanism to provide a way to allow
5321bis and 5322bis to progress without trying to incorporate
those other bits of practice, recommendations, and supplemental
protocols.  

In other words, there is a commitment for the WG to address
several issues including [in]security but not how to address
them or even whether text is appropriate. Those are WG tasks if
the WG is created.   FWIW, there is already an incomplete
starting point list of such topics in an appendix to
draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-03 and transport layer security is on
it and I just tightened it a bit more for the working copy for
the next version.  So, yes, it is on the issues list and won't
get lost.

regards,
   john

--On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 16:40 -0700 Benjamin Kaduk via
Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:

>... 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-emailcore/
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------- COMMENT:
> Also, I presume that the applicability statement will include
> recommendations for transport security for email; it might be
> worth mentioning that explicitly to forestall questions about
> SMTP (in)security.