Re: smtp charter (revised)

[Ittai Hershman <ittai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My oh my.  We do seem to be going around in circles, don't we...

I have put a broader charter proposal for IETF-SMTP on the table.  It
has been seconded as "reasonable" and "well balanced".  I would like
to hear reactions from the broader community of this list, especially
from some of the Europeans that have voiced strong opinions on 8bit
transport.

A reprise of my proposal follows.

-Ittai

    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 91 11:19:54 EDT
    From: Ittai Hershman <ittai@shemesh.stern.nyu.edu>
    To: John C Klensin <KLENSIN@infoods.mit.edu>
    Cc: Stef@ics.uci.edu, ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu
    Office-Phone: 212-285-6080
    Subject: Re: smtp charter (revised)
    In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 18 Apr 91 07:33:52-EDT
    Message-Id: <>

    So, John, what should be done?

    I agreed with Stef's first "concept" message, but not with his second
    (more constraining) message for largely the reasons John has articulated.

    I propose that we should proceed thus:

    	1.  IETF-822 should proceed with NSB et al.'s  proposed RFC.
	    This will allow current Internet mail to transmit things
	    other than 7-bit text, but encoded in 7-bit text.

	    This is a pragmatic short-term solution, and possibly "the
	    right" long term solution also, as some argue -- but that
	    remains to be seen.

	2.  IETF-SMTP should proceed with a longer-term revised SMTP
	    RFC.  This new SMTP will end up being a little more
	    complicated, but will allow for the realities of
	    internationalization.  I see this new SMTP (MCMTP) as a
	    new protocol, which:

		o is leveraged on RFC-821 and the lessons learned since
		  (with no limitation on copying 821's syntax as needed).
		  [And is leveraged on the lessons learned in the X.400
		  community -- added after John Klensin's X.400-over-ip
		  response -- IH 4/19]

		o has its own port number so that experimentation can
		  occur between consenting hosts without being worried
		  about interoperability -- at this stage -- with SMTP.

		o recognizes that 7-bit ASCII is too big a constraint
		  in an industry which has made a commitment to
		  internationalization.  (opening up the biggest can
		  of worms this industry has ever grappled with, IMHO)

		o recognizes that a different network "protocol"
		  allows for sender-initiated file transfer (which is
		  essentially a form of FTP as MAIL), and that end-users
		  find this a valuable service.

    In this manner, we can meet today's needs today, and yet continue
    innovating for the realties of the future.  Now that we've split the
    groups, we can accomplish both.  Let's get on with it.

    -Ittai