Markdown Version | Session Recording

EMAILCORE

Summary

The EMAILCORE interim meeting focused primarily on the status and content of the SMTPbis and ASbis drafts, with significant discussion on the placement and wording of message submission-related text, particularly Appendix B of SMTPbis. The working group reviewed several open issues for ASbis, making decisions or outlining next steps for most of them. A key decision was to keep Appendix B within SMTPbis rather than moving it to submissionbis or a new document, given charter constraints and the desire to avoid further delays. The goal is to bring SMTPbis version 22 to a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) before the end of the year.

Key Discussion Points

Working Group Status Update

• formatbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-formatbis) is nearly ready for WGLC. It will undergo a re-WGLC due to previous changes.
• SMTPbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-smtpbis) is nearly ready for WGLC, with hopes to reach agreement on version 22 content.
• ASbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-asbis) draft has expired but will be refreshed, with upcoming work on open tickets.
• submissionbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-submissionbis) will be returned to shortly.

SMTPbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-smtpbis) Discussion

• Section 1.2 Clarification: A non-controversial change was noted, clarifying that the document is a revision of previous RFCs and includes registry changes. No objections were raised.
• Section 7.9 (Relay Behavior): A proposed text change from John Levine to section 7.9 was discussed. The new text clarifies how sites commonly handle relaying, particularly concerning non-standard relay configurations.
  • A sense of those present indicated acceptance of the proposed change, with the understanding that it reflects current common practices rather than imposing new normative requirements for corner cases.
• IANA Registration for SMTP Extensions: A proposed change to IANA registration was presented, replacing a boolean "suitable for message submission" field with a requirement level (e.g., MUST, SHOULD, MUST NOT). This was presented as non-controversial and accepted.
• Appendix B and Message Submission Text: This was a significant point of discussion.
  • Proposed changes to Section 7.2: Pete Resnick proposed moving a sentence from section 7.2 related to trace field information disclosure to section 6.4.9, where similar discussions exist. This was seen as a cleanup.
  • Appendix B Content: John Levine clarified that Appendix B is not purely for SMTP submission and contains normative language applicable to more generic gatewaying scenarios.
  • Procedural Options for Appendix B: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether Appendix B should be moved out of SMTPbis. Options considered included:
    • Moving it to an updated/obsoleted submissionbis (RFC 6409).
    • Moving it to ASbis.
    • Creating an entirely new "gatewaying into SMTP" document.
    • Leaving it in SMTPbis.
  • Charter Constraints: Concerns were raised that moving Appendix B (or even significant restructuring within SMTPbis for "elegance") might fall outside the current WG charter, which explicitly prohibits "rearranging and restructuring documents for elegance." Such changes could require a charter modification and delay the work.
  • Prevailing Opinion: The sense of those present was to avoid opening broader charter discussions that could significantly delay the core SMTPbis and ASbis documents.
  • Decision: Appendix B and its related text will remain in SMTPbis. John C. will draft an introductory/historical sentence for Appendix B to explain its presence and broader applicability within the document, and John L. will check if wording improvements from his draft are suitable for cherry-picking into this appendix.

ASbis (draft-ietf-emailcore-asbis) Tickets Discussion

• Issue 80: Clarify TLS/Port 465/587: Discussion on acknowledging the existence of Port 465 (SMTP over implicit TLS) alongside Port 587 (SMTP with STARTTLS) in ASbis.
  • Decision: Acknowledge Port 465 in ASbis section 4.6 alongside Port 587.
  • Action Item: Todd to draft specific text for ASbis to reflect this. The ticket will then be closed.
• Issue 38: 78 octet limit vs. 998 line length limit: Clarification of these two limits. It was suggested that 5322bis already makes this clear in section 2.1.1.
  • Action Item: Alexey to post to the mailing list, offering to provide an example if deemed necessary, otherwise close the ticket.
• Issue 40: Recommended Extensions: Review ASbis for coverage of recommended SMTP extensions (8bit-MIME, Enhanced Reply Codes, DSN, Pipelining, SMTPUTF8).
  • Action Item: Todd to post to the mailing list to confirm ASbis coverage and then close the ticket if sufficient. Deprecating old extensions was deemed a separate issue.
• Issue 51: Email addresses in web forms: Discussed the tension between IETF mail standards and HTML specifications. The current ASbis text in section 4.3 (which addresses common problematic cases) was reviewed.
  • Decision: The current text in ASbis section 4.3 is considered sufficient and "as good as we're going to get it." The ticket will be closed.
  • Action Item: Todd to update the ticket on the mailing list.
• Issue 66: Time zones in Date and Receive header fields: Discussed coverage in 5322bis (section 3.3) regarding time zone specification, including the use of "-0000".
  • Decision: The text in 5322bis section 3.3 is sufficient. The ticket will be closed.
  • Action Item: Todd to update the ticket on the mailing list.
• Issue 78: Advice against URL %-encoding on non-ASCII email addresses: Discussion on adding advice against using URL percent-encoding and Punycode for local-part email addresses.
  • Action Item: John Levine to provide suggested text regarding Punycode. The expanded text for ASbis section 4.2 will then be discussed on the mailing list.
• Issue 79: Add International Consideration section: Discussed whether to add a dedicated internationalization section or rely on existing pointers to RFC 6530 series and MIME documents.
  • Action Item: Todd to initiate a discussion on the mailing list. The initial sense was that existing pointers might be sufficient.

Decisions and Action Items

• Decision: The proposed text changes to SMTPbis section 7.9 are accepted. (John C. to implement in next revision).
• Decision: The IANA registration change for SMTP extensions (Boolean to requirement level) is accepted. (John C. to implement in next revision).
• Decision: SMTPbis Appendix B and related message submission text from section 7.2 will remain in SMTPbis to avoid charter issues and delays.
  • Action Item: John C. to draft an explanatory sentence or two for Appendix B in SMTPbis. (Target: next week).
  • Action Item: John L. to review section 5 of his draft (draft-leivine-emailcore-submissionbis-updates) for potential wording improvements to be cherry-picked into SMTPbis Appendix B.
• Decision: Acknowledge Port 465 in ASbis section 4.6 alongside Port 587.
  • Action Item: Todd to draft the specific text for ASbis. (Target: Next draft refresh).
• Decision: ASbis text in section 4.3 regarding email addresses in web forms is sufficient.
  • Action Item: Todd to update and close ticket 51 on the mailing list.
• Decision: 5322bis section 3.3 sufficiently covers time zones.
  • Action Item: Todd to update and close ticket 66 on the mailing list.
• Action Item: Alexey to post to the mailing list to discuss ticket 38 (78/998 octet limit) and offer an example.
• Action Item: Todd to post to the mailing list to confirm ASbis coverage for ticket 40 (Recommended Extensions).
• Action Item: John L. to provide text about Punycode for ASbis section 4.2 (for ticket 78).
• Action Item: Todd to initiate a mailing list discussion for ticket 79 (International Consideration section).

Next Steps

• John C. aims to produce SMTPbis version 22 within approximately one week, targeting it to be ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC).
• The chairs plan to start WGLC for SMTPbis (version 22) and redo WGLC for formatbis in parallel before the end of the calendar year, potentially with a longer WGLC period to account for holidays.
• Todd will work through the identified ASbis tickets by posting to the mailing list with proposed resolutions and text changes, leading to an ASbis draft refresh.
• The submissionbis draft is to be refreshed soon.

Related Documents

draft-ietf-emailcore-asbis, draft-ietf-emailcore-formatbis, draft-ietf-emailcore-smtpbis, draft-ietf-emailcore-submissionbis, draft-leivine-emailcore-submissionbis-updates