**Session Date/Time:** 29 Nov 2023 15:00

# [EMAILCORE](../wg/emailcore.html)

## 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.