Subject: Re: OBJECTION: Last Call: Message Submission to Proposed Standard

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:20:22 -0700

At 12:37 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
>> I object to this being put forward as a proposed standard. My
>> understanding
>> after the last round of discussions on the IETF list was that the
>> IETF-Submit document was to be advanced as a BCP, making no protocol
>> changes
>> to SMTP and documenting the use of SMTP as a submission protocol.

Actually, the minutes of the mailrev BOF say that there was disagreement
about what status this should have. I believe that Patrik Fältström was
watching the consensus so that he could decide if this was a proposed
standard, BCP, or Experimental.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Patrik Faltstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:41:01 +0200 (MET DST)

> standard, BCP, or Experimental.

I didn't see any clear consensus as Paul writes. I am currently talking
with various people trying to sort this out -- for example my co-AD Keith
Moore.

Greg, your message is received and understood. I am already working on
sorting this out. I don't know the solution yet, though.

    Patrik

---

From: Patrik Faltstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:41:01 +0200 (MET DST)

Patrik

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:15:21 -0700 (PDT)

> with various people trying to sort this out -- for example my co-AD Keith

Excerpt from the mailrev BOF minutes:
---
Straw poll suggested that BCP was not appropriate for this draft. Many
felt that this should be a proposed standard. Some felt it should be
experimental. One objected to proposed standard.
---
 
> sorting this out. I don't know the solution yet, though.

As a practical matter, there are two choices:

(1) Create the conceptual split between submission and relay now with this
    proposal, so that submission-specific services can be added in the
    future.

(2) Forever blur the distinction between submission and relay and use port
    25 for both.  Any submission-specific services which could interfere
    with relay will be actively opposed due to their danger to the
    interoperability of the installed base.

I'm concerned that people don't realize that speaking against (1) is
equivalent to speaking for (2).  Some have argued we need a brand new
submission protocol, but in practice, SMTP is good enough for submission
so there is insufficient benefit for the cost involved of deploying a new
protocol.

I suspect some of the people opposing (1) will find they have
inadvertantly sabotaged some of the standards work they wanted to get done
in the process.  Without a clean architecture, certain things are not
possible. 

Personally, I prefer (1), but (2) is now being deployed due to the delay
reaching concensus on (1).  It may be too late for (1), but it's worth
trying to clean up the architecture.

		- Chris

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:15:21 -0700 (PDT)

- Chris

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:15:21 -0700 (PDT)

- Chris

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:53:24 -0700 (PDT)

This is primarily addressed to the Area Director.

>>>>> On 28 Sep 1998 12:15:01 -0700, [email-masked] (Patrik Faltstrom) sa=
id:

  Patrik> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
  >> Actually, the minutes of the mailrev BOF say that there was disagr=
eement
  >> about what status this should have. I believe that Patrik F=E4ltst=
r=F6m was
  >> watching the consensus so that he could decide if this was a propo=
sed
  >> standard, BCP, or Experimental.

  Patrik> I didn't see any clear consensus as Paul writes. I am current=
ly talking
  Patrik> with various people trying to sort this out -- for example my=
 co-AD Keith
  Patrik> Moore.

  Patrik> Greg, your message is received and understood. I am already w=
orking on
  Patrik> sorting this out. I don't know the solution yet, though.

The last round of Last Calls for this spec. clearly
ended in an obvious consensus that your message
(speaking  as the AD) captured appropriately.

What you suggested as the "way forward" -- BCP now,
new protocol later -- was also in essence a statement
of consensus in that it was consistent with a number
of previous suggestions (including my own).

Since then, there has been no discussion of anything
other than a BCP on the ietf-submit mailing list. On
the mailing list, comments were made about the fact
that the language of that spec was still not BCP
oriented and alternative text that suggested simple
BCP style text was proposed -- by "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>.

I am not a standards junky. I don't go to IETF
meetings any more.  I don't know what exactly
happened at that meeting.  But, in the absence of
reasonable discussion on the group mailing list about
change of direction, shouldn't we be staying the BCP
course?

Have things changed?
Has the group mailing list become irrelevant?

Why are we revisiting this topic again like this?

Even though I don't know  exactly what happened in the
meeting, it appears to me that a bounch of standard
junkies who are hooked on the proposed standard
status as opposed to content are trying to pull a
fast one again.

--
=09Mohsen Banan
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-425-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-425-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]=

            U.S.A. =09=09=09=09URL: http://www.neda.com/

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:53:24 -0700 (PDT)

id:

eement
r=F6m was
sed

Have things changed?