idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits33280/draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) 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 date (November 12, 2009) is 4572 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 821 (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1869 (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 YAM Working Group J. Klensin 3 Internet-Draft 4 Intended status: Informational B. Leiba 5 Expires: May 16, 2010 Huawei Technologies 6 November 12, 2009 8 Preliminary Evaluation of RFC5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), 9 for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working 10 Group 11 draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-00.txt 13 Abstract 15 This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 5321, Simple Mail 16 Transfer Protocol for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It 17 has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group. 19 THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS 20 WRITTEN TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION WITH THE IESG. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 29 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 30 Drafts. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 40 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 41 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1.1. Note to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. Preliminary Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1. Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.2. Time in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2.4. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.5. Non-Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.6. Downward references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 2.7. IESG Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 1. Introduction 82 A preliminary evaluation has been made of Simple Mail Tranfer 83 Protocol [RFC5321] by the Yet Another Mail (YAM) Working Group for 84 advancing it from Draft to Full Standard. The YAM WG requests 85 feedback from the IESG on this decision. 87 1.1. Note to RFC Editor 89 This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is 90 written to facilitate processing within the IESG. 92 2. Preliminary Evaluation 94 2.1. Document 96 Title: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 98 Link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321 100 2.2. Time in Place 102 RFC2026: _"A specification shall remain at the Draft Standard level 103 for at least four (4) months, or until at least one IETF meeting 104 has occurred."_ 106 Published: October 2008 108 2.3. Implementation and Operational Experience 110 RFC2026: _"significant implementation and successful operational 111 experience ... characterized by a high degree of technical 112 maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified 113 protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet 114 community."_ 116 Confidence level: Very high. 118 Electronic mail (historically known as "netmail" before "email" came 119 into common use) has been in active use in the Internet community 120 since the early 1970s. Although many small adjustments and 121 clarifications have been made, the basic transport protocol that is 122 now used has been changed in only two important ways since the 123 publication of RFC 821 in August 1982. One of those changes was the 124 introduction of DNS-based mail routing with the MX record with RFC 125 974 in January 1986 (with some small clarifications in RFC 1123 in 126 October 1979). The second was the introduction of a model for 127 negotiating optional services with RFC 1425 in February 1993. 129 While many mail systems over the years have relied more on the 130 robustness of receiving systems in the face of deviations (or 131 creative interpretations of RFC 821 language in spite of changes and 132 clarifications over the last 27 years), the DRUMS WG work that 133 produced RFC 2821 [RFC2821] in April 2001 was largely an update to 134 clarify various provisions. With the exception of a very few edge- 135 case clarifications and changes in requirements levels, systems that 136 conform to the combination of RFC 821 [RFC0821] and RFC 1869 137 [RFC1869] (both Full Standards) conform to RFC 5321. Those 138 differences represented existing practice when RFC 5321 was written 139 and have been well-tested and widely deployed. 141 2.4. Proposed Changes 143 The YAM WG proposes making the following changes in a revision: 145 Terminology: There has been ongoing controversy about the 146 terminology in RFC 5321 and especially changes made between 821 147 and 2821 or between 2821 and 5321. While we assume that 5321 is 148 adequate, the WG will review terminology as appropriate and may 149 make some adjustments. 151 Metalanguage: During and after IETF Last Call on 5321, some 152 suggestions were made about how to make metalanguage productions 153 easier to find and connect. A complete rewrite or restructuring 154 of the metalanguage should be avoided on the grounds that it would 155 carry a very high risk of introducing errors. Instead, resources 156 and tools permitting (significant manual work is now required), 157 the revised document will contain an index to productions and 158 where they are defined. 160 Normative References: RFC 5321 is worded in a way that makes some 161 references normative that are not strictly required to be. The WG 162 will consider whether rewording to make such references 163 informative is appropriate. 165 2.5. Non-Changes 167 The YAM WG discussed and chose not to make the following changes: 169 1. Complete revision, rearrangement, or reformatting of metalanguage 170 (see #2 above). 172 2. Any extensions that would violate the rules for Full Standard or 173 otherwise require revisiting the approved interoperability report 174 for RFC 5321. 176 3. A number of extensions and changes that would have imposed 177 significant new requirements on SMTP, or that would have implied 178 incompatible changes, were proposed during both the DRUMS WG 179 period and during the discussions that led to RFC 5321. In each 180 case, the authors were advised to prepare a specific Internet- 181 Draft describing the change, convince the community to progress 182 it to Proposed Standard, and then implement and deploy the change 183 quickly enough to "catch up" with the progress that started with 184 RFC 2821. The notion was that those changes could then be 185 integrated with the progression at the same maturity level. It 186 is important to note that, independent of any constraints imposed 187 by the YAM charter design, none of those proposals have appeared 188 and been progressed even to IETF Last Call. 190 2.6. Downward references 192 At Full Standard, the following references would be downward 193 references: 195 RFC 5322 if 5322bis is not progressed simultaneously with 5321bis. 196 (This is not expected to happen.) 198 RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture. 200 RFC 3848, ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration. Note 201 that it is possible to rephrase RFC 5321bis to avoid this 202 normative reference and the WG will consider doing that. 204 2.7. IESG Feedback 206 The YAM WG requests feedback from the IESG on this decision. In 207 particular: 209 o Does the IESG believe the proposed changes are suitable during a 210 move from Draft to Full Standard? 212 o Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support 213 for technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG 214 believe any additional changes are critical to advance this 215 document from draft to full standard? If so, please provide 216 sufficient information so the WG can address these issues prior to 217 IETF last call or determine that the document is inappropriate for 218 the YAM WG to process at this time. 220 o Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a 221 full standard? If not, please cite which specific downward 222 reference or references are problematic and why so the WG can 223 address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the 224 document is inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time. 226 3. IANA Considerations 228 This document contains no IANA actions. 230 4. Security Considerations 232 This document requests IESG feedback. There are no security 233 considerations. 235 5. Acknowledgments 237 This document was prepared from a template supplied by Subramanian 238 Moonesamy. 240 Some of the information provided in this document, but not provided 241 in the RFC 1652 evaluation (http://www.ietf.org/id/ 242 draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt), was inspired by 243 brief discussions with Pasi Eronen and Subramanian Moonesamy during 244 IETF 76. 246 6. References 248 6.1. Normative References 250 [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, 251 October 2008. 253 6.2. Informative References 255 [RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, 256 RFC 821, August 1982. 258 [RFC1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. 259 Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869, 260 November 1995. 262 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, 263 April 2001. 265 Authors' Addresses 267 John C Klensin 268 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322 269 Cambridge, MA 02140 270 USA 272 Phone: +1 617 245 1457 273 Email: john+ietf@jck.com 275 Barry Leiba 276 Huawei Technologies 278 Phone: +1 646 827 0648 279 Email: barryleiba@computer.org 280 URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/