* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Extra Status Pages

Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend (Active WG)
Art Area: Barry Leiba, Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov | 2017-Sep-13 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-104 extra minutes

Session 2019-03-25 1350-1550: Athens/Barcelona - Audio stream - extra chatroom
Session 2019-03-26 0900-1100: Karlin 3 - Audio stream - extra chatroom

Minutes

minutes-104-extra-01 minutes



          EXTRA session minutes - IETF104 Prague - Monday Mar-25-2019 13:50
          ===
          
          Welcome Barry as new area director for the EXTRA working group.
          
          CHAT OVER IMAP:
          * A chat client, but using email underneath
          * proposed "submission token" spec can be used for any email flow,
            not just COI
          * can always fall back to "slow path", this is an upgrade to faster
            mail flow where there's an existing relationship/conversation
            happening between the parties.
          * Dovecot / OpenExchange have been playing with this for a while
            internally - looking for input from this group.
          
          Discussion of details:
          * different trust levels: temp/perm - does that make sense?  Or
            just always refresh?
          * does the token come with a submission server name?  Not right now,
            use MX or SRV.  Maybe token should include submisison server hostname.
          * discussion of using token to say "prioritise this message" but keep
            the flow in band: problem, if everything is special, nothing is special,
            and every hop needs to honour this.  Still not as fast as direct
            injection.
          * should this use HTTP POST rather than SMTP at all?  Pros and cons.
          * lots of baggage comes with using email as the transport, but maybe that
            frame cost is OK so long as latency is low.
          * discussion of "using offsite mail filtering" as a common cause of
          a latency
            path that this could bypass.
          * standards-track "delivery-by", if not delivered by a certain time,
          drop it.
            Kind of the opposite of what we want here though.
          
          Dicussion of barriers to adoption:
          * many sites won't want to allow direct SMTP injection that bypasses their
            corporate firewall.  Though if you're running a Jabber server, that does
            much the same thing!
          * Pro of SMTP vs HTTP post, just connect to a different server with
          different
            creds but inject same existing message via same SMTP protocol -
            less special
            case for client.
          
          Discussions of where the work could happen:
          * During the IETF fax working group there was a proposed SMTP immediate
            delivery mechanism.
          * Way back in 821 there was an SMTP command for exactly this mechanism
          * It couldn't happen in EXTRA - this would have to be an SMTP working
            group.
          
          
          RECHARTER:
          * This group was originally chartered without SMTP to avoid distraction
          and
            due to pushback about starting that work.
          * If we did SMTP, we'd also redo message format (RFC532[12] and MIME) and
            move them to internet standards.
          * ACTION: Bron to write an updated charter for EXTRA, continuing with our
            existing maintenance work.
          * ACTION: Alexey/Barry to write a charter for an SMTP/MIME working group.
          
          QUOTA:
          * Last time we met there was interest in a quota extension
          * Alexey and Dave Cridland already have an old draft
          * Call for co-author, Michael is interested in co-editing
          * Discussion of making setquota optional.
          * Discussion of "storage used" vs RFC822 sizes.  Decided to mirror the
            language in RFC8438 STATUS=SIZE:
              >  [...] it MUST be equal to or greater
              >  than the sum of the values of the RFC822.SIZE FETCH message data
              >  item [IMAP4rev1] of all messages in the mailbox.
          * ACTION: Bron to issue call for adoption
          
          
          
          
          EXTRA session minutes - IETF104 Prague - Tuesday Mar-26-2019 09:00
          ===
          
          IMAP4rev2:
          * BINARY - agreed that it should be leaf nodes only
          * SEARCHRES - include
          * MUST sent BYE - much discussion
            - e.g. TLS issues, can't even get a BYE down the wire.
            - conclusion: remove the MUST
          * Mailbox naming: Barry will look over the whole section
            - landmines for V1/V2 implementations
            - Chris has implemented, subtle issues around bare '&'.
            - Server needs to track if client has enabled imap4rev2
              or smtputf8.
          * AUTHENTICATE
            - take out DIGEST-MD5 and suggest SCRAM-SHA-256.
            - But don't make it mandatory.
            - Suspect pushback from SEC ADs about not making it mandatory.
          * LIST reference argument
            - leave it as it is
            - explain why it's there and don't use it unless you have a strong
            use case
            - tell clients to use ""
          * LSUB - remove
          * Drop CHECK
          * SEARCH:
            - know at least 4 servers which implement it differently, nobody seems
            to mind
            - document should advise substring as a sensible default if you don't
            have an
              engine that does something else.
            - Barry will look at this.
          * Auto \Seen
            - don't change anything, but advise use of .PEEK
          * UID EXPUNGE will be fixed
          * RFC822 vs BODY[]
            - properly DEPRECATE.  Advise use of other forms, but don't remove in
            this spec.
          * CAPABILITY
            - mention it can be sent in auth responses
          * NAMESPACE response -> add some text
          * Make sure SEARCH TEXT and SEARCH BODY differences are clarified
          
          ACTIONS:
          * Barry to look at Mailbox Naming
          * Barry to look at language for SEARCH
          * Alexey to look at capability and namespace text
          
          * NEXT STEPS: hope WGLC soon
          
          Milestones:
          * IMAP4rev2 -> June 2019
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/extra/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -