Hi, Personal request and request on behalf of the EMAILCORE WG. I hope none of it is controversial. I am also assuming that everyone participating in this discussion agrees that a revised, Internet Standard, SMTP spec is a reasonable goal. If anyone's goal is just to kill the document (and/or think they can kill SMTP by killing this document), I don't have anything constructive to say to you... but I hope there are no such people. It looks to me as if the best possibility for sorting out these issues, including the boundary between the SMTP spec (draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis) and the email Applicability Statement (draft-ietf-emailcore-as) is going to be the EMAILCORE meeting Thursday of next week. Unless Alexey can arrange additional time and people can get to a second slot on short notice, that meeting is only scheduled for an hour and efficiency and focus are therefore important. Alexey has assigned ticket numbers to what seemed to be the important issues (at least as of several days ago)[2] and I posted draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32 in the hope of helping to focus the discussions. I am still hoping to get -33 posted this weekend with additional issues and suggestions included. Also, Ken posted draft-ietf-emailcore-as-12 at the beginning of last week. It already contains text discussing opportunistic TLS and STARTTLS. I'm busy this week. Perhaps less busy than those who start traveling to Dublin soon, but if I need to keep reading the "SECDIR Review.." thread, the back-and-forth discussions, and responding when that seems important, it is likely that I will not be able to get to -33 early enough to be really helpful in focusing the meeting. Similarly, if additional ticket numbers need to be assigned, minimizing the extra traffic Alexey (and Ken) need to deal with between a meeting they are now attending and early next week seems to be a good idea. So, four requests: (1) Take the important parts of this discussion to the EMAILCORE list [1] and follow that list (at least until the end of next week) because useful discussions are likely to appear there and probably not on the Last-Call list. (2) If you want to make a case for inclusion of "STARTTLS" in rfc5321bis, explain why that is desirable and necessary and why your reasons are stronger than the ones that have caused the WG to decide to not do hat, reasons that have been explained in this Last Call discussion. And propose text, if only because it is probably clear from these discussions that I'm the wrong person to make an initial proposal for how to include it. (3) No matter how you feel about (2), please review Section 6 of draft-ietf-emailcore-as-12. If you think it is adequate, the WG should know that. If not, specific suggestions (not just complaints) would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have not looked at draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-32, or at least the diffs from -31, this would be a good time so that any aspect of the Last Call discussion on which I have messed up or left out can be reflected, at least as notes, in -33. Please check the ticket list too. (4) For (2) and (3), try, if possible, to summarize your position and/or suggestions in a way that would make an easy addition to an agenda page and/or a "meeting materials" collection. If we have only an hour and you have a position you consider important, that is the best way to have it considered. And, if possible, try to attend next week's meeting at IETF (in person or remote as appropriate). thanks, john [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emailcore [2] https://github.com/ietf-wg-emailcore/emailcore/issues -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
