idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits40459/draft-ietf-emailcore-as-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (April 9, 2021) is 406 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 822 (Obsoleted by RFC 2822) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1341 (Obsoleted by RFC 1521) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1425 (Obsoleted by RFC 1651) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2822 (Obsoleted by RFC 5322) -- Duplicate reference: RFC5321, mentioned in 'RFC5321', was also mentioned in 'ID.RFC5321bis'. -- Duplicate reference: RFC5322, mentioned in 'RFC5322', was also mentioned in 'ID.RFC5322bis'. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 EMAILCORE J. Klensin, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft 4 Intended status: Standards Track K. Murchison 5 Expires: October 11, 2021 Fastmail 6 E. Sam 7 April 9, 2021 9 Applicability Statement for IETF Core Email Protocols 10 draft-ietf-emailcore-as-01 12 Abstract 14 Electronic mail is one of the oldest Internet applications that is 15 still in very active use. While the basic protocols and formats for 16 mail transport and message formats have evolved slowly over the 17 years, events and thinking in more recent years have supplemented 18 those core protocols with additional features and suggestions for 19 their use. This Applicability Statement describes the relationship 20 among many of those protocols and provides guidance and makes 21 recommendations for the use of features of the core protocols. 23 Note on draft-ietf-emailcore-as-01 25 This version is provided as a document management convenience to 26 update the author list and make an un-expired version available to 27 the WG. There are no substantive changes from the prior version. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2021. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 2. Applicability of Some SMTP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Applicability of Message Format Provisions . . . . . . . . . 3 66 4. MIME and Its Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 5. Other Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 (2020-03-30) 76 to draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 (2020-10-06) to 78 -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 1. Introduction 83 In its current form, this draft is a placeholder and beginning of an 84 outline for the Applicability Statement that has been discussed as a 85 complement for proposed revisions of the base protocol specifications 86 for SMTP [RFC5321] (being revised as ID.RFC5321bis [ID.RFC5321bis]) 87 and Internet Message Format [RFC5322] (being revised as ID.RFC5322bis 88 [ID.RFC5322bis]). Among other things, it is expected to capture 89 topics that a potential WG concludes are important but that should 90 not become part of those core documents. 92 As discussed in RFC 2026 [RFC2026], 93 "An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what 94 circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to support a 95 particular Internet capability." 97 That form of a standards track document is appropriate because one of 98 the roles of such a document is to explain the relationship among 99 technical specification, describe how they are used together, and 100 make statements about what is "required, recommended, or elective". 102 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 103 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 104 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and 105 RFC 8174 [RFC8174]. 107 2. Applicability of Some SMTP Provisions 109 Over the years since RFC 5321 was published in October 2008, usage of 110 SMTP has evolved, machines and network speeds have increased, and the 111 frequency with which SMTP senders and receivers have to be prepared 112 to deal with systems that are disconnected from the Internet for long 113 periods or that require many hops to reach has decreased. During the 114 same period, the IETF has become much more sensitive to privacy and 115 security issues and the need to be more resistant or robust against 116 spam and other attacks. In addition SMTP (and Message Format) 117 extensions have been introduced that are expected to evolve the 118 Internet's mail system to better accommodate environments in which 119 Basic Latin Script is not the norm. 121 This section describes adjustments that may be appropriate for SMTP 122 under various circumstances and discusses the applicability of other 123 protocols that represent newer work or that are intended to deal with 124 relatively newer issues. 126 [[CREF1: ... Actual content to be supplied after WG consideration. 127 ]] 129 3. Applicability of Message Format Provisions 131 Placeholder: 132 I am not sure what, if anything, goes here. If nothing does, we drop 133 the section. 135 [[CREF2: ... Actual content to be supplied after WG consideration.]] 137 4. MIME and Its Implications 139 When the work leading to the original version of the MIME 140 specification was completed in 1992 [RFC1341], the intention was that 141 it be kept separate from the specification for basic mail headers in 142 RFC 822 [RFC0822]. That plan was carried forward into RFC 822's 143 successors, RFC 2822 [RFC2822] and RFC 5322 [RFC5322] and the 144 successors of that original MIME specification including RFC 2045 145 [RFC2045]. The decision to do so was different from the one made for 146 SMTP, for which the core specification was changed to allow for the 147 extension mechanism [RFC1425] which was then incorporated into RFC 148 5321 and its predecessor [RFC2821]. 150 Various uses of MIME have become nearly ubiquitous in contemporary 151 email while others may have fallen into disuse or been repurposed 152 from the intent of their original design. 154 It may be appropriate to make some clear statements about the 155 applicability of MIME and its features. 157 5. Other Stuff 159 It is fairly clear that there will be things that do not fit into the 160 sections outlined above. As one example, if the IETF wants to say 161 something specific about signatures over headers or what (non-trace) 162 headers may reasonably be altered in transit, that may be more 163 appropriate to other sections than to any of the three suggested 164 above. 166 6. Acknowledgments 168 ... To be supplied... 169 [[CREF3: But don't forget to mention the discussions on the SMTP list 170 of the reasons for this document in the last half of 2019. ]] 172 7. IANA Considerations 174 This memo includes no requests to or actions for IANA. The IANA 175 registries associated with the protocol specifications it references 176 are specified in their respective documents. 178 8. Security Considerations 180 All drafts are required to have a security considerations section and 181 this one eventually will. 183 ... To be supplied ... 185 9. References 187 9.1. Normative References 189 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 190 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 191 . 193 [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 194 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message 195 Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996, 196 . 198 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 199 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 201 . 203 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 204 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 205 May 2017, . 207 9.2. Informative References 209 [ID.RFC5321bis] 210 Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", Feburary 211 2021, . 214 [ID.RFC5322bis] 215 Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", March 2021, 216 . 219 [RFC0822] Crocker, D., "STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET 220 TEXT MESSAGES", STD 11, RFC 822, DOI 10.17487/RFC0822, 221 August 1982, . 223 [RFC1341] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet 224 Mail Extensions): Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing 225 the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 1341, 226 DOI 10.17487/RFC1341, June 1992, 227 . 229 [RFC1425] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Ed., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and 230 D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", February 1993, 231 . 233 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 234 RFC 2821, DOI 10.17487/RFC2821, April 2001, 235 . 237 [RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC2822, April 2001, 239 . 241 [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, 242 DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008, 243 . 245 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, 247 . 249 Appendix A. Change Log 251 RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication. 253 A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 (2020-03-30) to draft- 254 ietf-emailcore-as-00 256 o Change of filename, metadata, and date to reflect transition to WG 257 document for new emailcore WG. No other substantive changes 259 A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 (2020-10-06) to -01 261 o Added co-authors (list is in alphabetical order for the present). 263 o Updated references to 5321bis and 5322bis. 265 o Added note at top, "This version is provided as a document 266 management convenience to update the author list and make an un- 267 expired version available to the WG. There are no substantive 268 changes from the prior version", which should be removed for 269 version -02. 271 Authors' Addresses 273 John C Klensin (editor) 274 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322 275 Cambridge, MA 02140 276 USA 278 Phone: +1 617 245 1457 279 Email: john-ietf@jck.com 280 Kenneth Murchison 281 Fastmail US LLC 282 1429 Walnut Street - Suite 1201 283 Philadelphia, PA 19102 284 USA 286 Email: murch@fastmailteam.com 288 E Sam 290 Email: winshell64@gmail.com