[10:28:59] Meetecho joins the room
[10:32:59] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[10:48:11] alex-meetecho joins the room
[10:50:01] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[10:50:01] Alessandro Amirante joins the room
[10:50:01] Dave Crocker joins the room
[10:50:01] Nathaniel Borenstein joins the room
[10:50:01] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[10:50:01] Kris Shrishak joins the room
[10:51:07] Alexey Melnikov_929 joins the room
[10:52:21] Barry Leiba joins the room
[10:53:11] Prashant Khare joins the room
[10:54:00] Murray Kucherawy joins the room
[10:54:15] Dave Crocker leaves the room
[10:54:22] Dave Crocker joins the room
[10:54:52] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[10:55:08] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[10:55:08] Harald Alvestrand joins the room
[10:55:23] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[10:55:28] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[10:55:49] Seth Blank joins the room
[10:55:49] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[10:56:10] Keith Moore joins the room
[10:56:22] Jim Fenton joins the room
[10:56:46] Trent joins the room
[10:56:49] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[10:56:56] John Klensin joins the room
[10:56:57] Prashant Khare leaves the room
[10:57:05] Keith Moore leaves the room
[10:57:06] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[10:57:09] Keith Moore joins the room
[10:57:14] Kenneth Murchison joins the room
[10:57:22] <Dave Crocker> Deep technical question:  how are folks getting their photos associated with the meetecho login?
[10:57:36] Prashant Khare joins the room
[10:57:37] John C Klensin joins the room
[10:57:41] <Meetecho> Dave Crocker: they're pulled from Gravatar automatically
[10:57:53] Shuai Zhao joins the room
[10:58:05] <Dave Crocker> gravatar?
[10:58:18] Ben Campbell joins the room
[10:58:36] Todd Herr joins the room
[10:58:36] <Meetecho> Yes, it's a service used by many services (github among others) that allows people to associate pictures to their mail addresses
[10:58:42] Pete Resnick joins the room
[10:58:49] Jim Fenton too joins the room
[10:59:12] <Ben Campbell> should I hear sound?
[10:59:25] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[10:59:27] Yoav Nir joins the room
[10:59:36] <Jim Fenton too> @Ben I hope not
[10:59:45] Bill Fenner joins the room
[10:59:46] Shuai Zhang joins the room
[10:59:46] <Keith Moore> same question here.  so far I'm hearing nothing.
[10:59:47] <Dave Crocker> @meetecho. ah, tnx.
[10:59:53] Leandro Navarro joins the room
[11:00:19] <Dave Crocker> yes
[11:00:20] <Jim Fenton too> yes
[11:00:22] <Keith Moore> yes I can hear now
[11:00:24] <Kenneth Murchison> yes
[11:00:24] <Trent> Yes
[11:00:25] <Tobia Castaldi> yes, I can
[11:00:32] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[11:00:33] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[11:00:37] John Levine joins the room
[11:00:47] Hannu Aronsson joins the room
[11:00:54] Shuai Zhang leaves the room
[11:00:57] Shuai Zhang joins the room
[11:01:02] Eric Mieth joins the room
[11:01:11] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:01:13] Autumn Tyr-Salvia joins the room
[11:01:25] <Jim Fenton too> got the slides
[11:01:29] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[11:01:36] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:01:43] brong joins the room
[11:01:44] <Tobia Castaldi> yes
[11:02:23] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:02:23] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:02:32] John (Clone) Levine joins the room
[11:02:38] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:02:45] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[11:02:45] Pete Resnick (the other one) joins the room
[11:02:47] Tadahiko Ito joins the room
[11:03:07] <John (Clone) Levine> yes we can
[11:03:07] Timothy Carlin joins the room
[11:03:10] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:03:11] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:03:11] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:03:15] <Jiankang Yao> yes
[11:03:34] Ned Freed joins the room
[11:04:08] Alessandro Vesely joins the room
[11:04:14] <brong> for my sins...
[11:04:17] <brong> you're welcome
[11:04:42] d sibold joins the room
[11:04:43] Ted Lemon joins the room
[11:04:50] Jim Fenton too has set the subject to: emailcore BOF @ IETF 108
[11:04:51] Shuai Zhang leaves the room
[11:05:07] Viktor Dukhovni joins the room
[11:05:53] Keith Moore leaves the room
[11:05:53] Keith Moore joins the room
[11:06:30] K Mohan Raidu joins the room
[11:06:36] <Nathaniel Borenstein> I heard you
[11:06:37] <brong> yes we hear you Alexey
[11:06:45] K Mohan Raidu leaves the room
[11:06:47] K Mohan Raidu joins the room
[11:06:49] <Trent> Yes, we hear you.  No agenda needs to be bashed. :)
[11:07:09] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[11:07:13] <Harald Alvestrand> That's a problem with meetecho. the chair can't hear you laughing at the jokes!
[11:07:18] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[11:07:28] <Meetecho> :)
[11:07:33] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[11:07:46] <Trent> &lt;joke&gt;An email walks into a bar...&lt;/joke&gt;
[11:07:48] <alex-meetecho> we shuold design a loughing tool! :D
[11:07:58] bhoeneis joins the room
[11:08:09] <John (Clone) Levine> allow multiple noises in a hum?
[11:08:12] <brong> groaning
[11:08:15] S.Umamaheswari joins the room
[11:08:22] <John (Clone) Levine> @brong yeah like that
[11:08:27] <brong> "there's nothing like a good joke, and that was nothing like a good joke"
[11:08:28] Jay Daley joins the room
[11:08:31] <Jim Fenton too> "In Meetecho, no one can hear you laugh."
[11:08:42] <Trent> Hee hee
[11:08:44] andrew_liu joins the room
[11:09:08] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[11:09:38] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[11:09:43] <brong> Noone can hear you at all if you're MIME
[11:09:52] <Jim Fenton too> groan
[11:10:12] <Keith Moore> @brong: well played
[11:11:01] Dorothy Cooley joins the room
[11:12:10] Trent bows to @brong's unmatched rapidity with le mot juste.
[11:13:18] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[11:14:02] <John (Clone) Levine> NO. That was easy.
[11:15:01] kmurchison joins the room
[11:15:39] <Dave Crocker> Why not change so that there is only one place that defines an email address?
[11:16:30] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:16:44] <Keith Moore> Dave: I suspect it makes sense to enforce restrictions on address syntax in only one place rather than two.
[11:17:05] <John (Clone) Levine> but that's an implementation problem, people will send giant fields anyway
[11:17:09] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:17:09] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:17:34] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:17:39] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:17:48] kivinen joins the room
[11:18:01] <Seth Blank> Please use the queue to speak
[11:18:05] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:18:08] <Seth Blank> and let the chairs or the speaker announce you
[11:18:20] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:18:20] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:18:20] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:18:23] <Dorothy Cooley> who was speaking before Dave (not Pete)
[11:18:33] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:18:33] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:18:34] <Seth Blank> it was me, Seth
[11:18:37] <John (Clone) Levine> Seth
[11:18:42] <Dorothy Cooley> ah TY
[11:18:50] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:19:10] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:19:10] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:19:10] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:19:18] Dominique Lazanski joins the room
[11:19:19] Jay Daley leaves the room
[11:19:22] <Dave Crocker> Put it into the message object spec.
[11:20:37] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[11:20:39] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[11:21:38] <brong> John: I'm not sure I know what you mean by the AI model
[11:21:56] <Keith Moore> I recommend caution about trying to use the same definition for address across both 5321bis/5322bis because implementors might believe that they should enforce such syntax in both layers, and that could lead to a new crop of subtle bugs no matter how carefully we define the syntax.   Also I hope we don't bring EAI into these specs.
[11:22:12] <brong> oh, EAI
[11:22:24] <Yoav Nir> It's a good goal to make minimal changes from 5322.  But publishing an RFC in 2020 is different from doing so in 2008.  A document would go through the directorates and the IESG, and you could get pushback on not having privacy considerations, on security considerations not being the flavor of the day, and even the ABNF being not the way we do things today.  IOW: we may be under-estimating the tine and effort.
[11:22:54] <Dave Crocker> Having the definitions be replicated invites disparity, as we have now.  Disparity invites operational problems, which is presumably the reason for the topic being raised here.
[11:22:58] <Barry Leiba> Yoav: We're already socialized that with the Sec ADs.
[11:23:23] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:23:32] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:23:43] <Barry Leiba> There's precedent for doing minor updates in order to progress along the standards track.
[11:24:27] <John (Clone) Levine> I think we agree that if we try to do non-small changes, the effort will suffer inevitable heat death
[11:24:37] kivinen joins the room
[11:25:37] <Keith Moore> Dave: I think the potential for disparity exists (and is approximately the same) whether or not each document has its own definition or refers to a common definition.   Different implementations will probably not recognize the same syntax.   But maybe it's more of a question of where syntax rules are enforced than of which definition is used.
[11:26:01] <Yoav Nir> @Barry: Good.  The random directorate member might not get the message.  When we (mostly Tero) brought IKEv2 to Internet Standard in RFC 7296 it took longer than was anticipated
[11:26:39] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[11:26:49] Sharwari Solapure joins the room
[11:26:59] K Mohan Raidu leaves the room
[11:27:05] K Mohan Raidu joins the room
[11:27:15] <John C Klensin> @John (Clone): I've already started to worry that if (1) 5321bis is more complicated (largely because of how it was written and (2) we are having this much controversy about 5322bis, it may already be impossible to actually do these revisions.
[11:27:24] K Mohan Raidu leaves the room
[11:27:24] K Mohan Raidu joins the room
[11:27:32] <Dave Crocker> Keith: I don't understand the basis for your assertions, especially the first.  The second appears to reduce to "some implementors misread and misimplement specs".  We aren't going to prevent that.  In fact, by reducing the number of definitions down to one, we'll reduce this kind of problem.
[11:27:54] <Keith Moore> Dave: it's not unusual for us to fail to understand one another.   :)
[11:28:19] <Keith Moore> Dave: we're probably not going to sort it out in jabber here
[11:28:43] <Dave Crocker> Keith: you claim that different implementation will probably not recognize the same syntax should be viewed as a major problem.  Having two definitions (especially when they aren't the same) invites this problem.  Having only one definition reduces it.
[11:28:53] Bill Fenner leaves the room
[11:28:54] <Keith Moore> Dave: disagree
[11:29:00] Sharwari Solapure leaves the room
[11:29:19] <Dave Crocker> Keith:  Again: please explain.
[11:29:24] <Keith Moore> Dave: not now
[11:29:27] <Nathaniel Borenstein> How can two different definitions be clearer than one definition and a pointer elsewhere?
[11:31:21] James Galvin joins the room
[11:31:30] <Keith Moore> Nathaniel: I think this is better sorted out in email than in jabber while someone else is talking.
[11:32:10] Rohit Abhishek joins the room
[11:32:39] <Alexey Melnikov_929> I think probably saying in the proposed Applicability Statement that spaces in left hand side are not a good idea.
[11:33:21] <Keith Moore> @Alexy: I could make a case that use of quoted strings in addresses is not a good idea, but there may still be some legacy cases that require them.
[11:34:27] <Jim Fenton too> Oh good, this isn't about the G.711 audio codec.
[11:34:42] <Keith Moore> :)
[11:35:13] Shuai Zhao leaves the room
[11:35:30] <Keith Moore> make 1yz undefined but reserved?
[11:35:33] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Dave/Keith/Nathaniel: After the session, you can go discuss f2f in https://ietf.gather.town/z6N2SDxHebMdDAfo/IETF-108
[11:35:56] Hernâni Marques joins the room
[11:36:11] <John C Klensin> More for the list than today, but note that, while examples with spaces showed up on the slide (because they are obvious), there are many other cases.  Consider "foo\@bar"@example.com for a particularly ugly example.   Again, I don't care, but let's not drop the topic for the wrong reasons.
[11:36:13] <Keith Moore> Pete: I'd prefer email; IMO this is something that requires some careful explanation
[11:36:20] <John (Clone) Levine> @keith how is that practically different from now?
[11:37:59] kivinen leaves the room
[11:38:01] <winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net> The video feed is not working for me - so im trying to do my best to see whats going on from notes/jabber
[11:38:49] <Jim Fenton too> @winshell Nobody's sending actual video -- do you mean that you can't see the slides?
[11:39:06] <Dorothy Cooley> no audio?
[11:39:18] <John C Klensin> @Dave: you mean useless A/S documents to which no one pays any attention like 1122 and 1123?
[11:40:30] Prashant Khare leaves the room
[11:40:52] <Dave Crocker> @john, do you have any examples more recent than 31 years ago and that were done under the cover of 'applicability statement'?
[11:41:38] <Keith Moore> @John: I waited 3 days to respond to your question on 8314 because I thought that a carefully thought out and worded response would be more likely to result in a productive discussion.  I don't think the off-the-cuff response that I almost sent would have been as useful.
[11:42:09] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:42:12] Shuai Zhao joins the room
[11:42:16] Kirsty P joins the room
[11:42:52] <winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net> no audio yeah i couldnt even get in
[11:43:09] <Meetecho> winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net: did you try rejoining already?
[11:43:11] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Dave: On the IESG, I have read several of such documents in other areas. I want to say that there have been a few in the "RT" end of "ART". I'd have to go look.
[11:43:26] <Ned Freed> If there is clarifying text for RFC 2920 I would be happy to revise. It's not that big of a doc.
[11:43:27] <Meetecho> If audio is the only issue, there's a button to reconnect that (circling arrows in the lower/right corner)
[11:43:38] <winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net> when i tried to log in with my account it said it didnt exist and it wouldnt let me create aan ew one
[11:43:54] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:44:06] <Meetecho> Not sure what you mean by creating an account? We leverage the datatracker's accounts for authentication
[11:44:36] <Keith Moore> I would vastly prefer to leave EAI out of all of this
[11:44:43] <Ned Freed> If there's to be an AS, STARTTLS needs to be in it.
[11:44:45] <winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net> yeah i tried using the datatracker account I had and it wasnt working for some reason … whatever ill watch the recording
[11:44:51] <Keith Moore> @Ned: agree
[11:44:55] <Meetecho> If you have troubles logging in, please open a ticket and it will be looked into ASAP
[11:44:59] Jay Daley joins the room
[11:45:00] <John C Klensin> The more recent example, specifically from the email world, is that there is already applicability statement material in both 5321 and 5322, mostly in the form of "it is not a good idea to rely on  this" statements in the former.  In the interest of progress, I'd like us to consider moving some of that material to a separate document rather than adding more of it.  Coming back to quoted addresses as an example, one solution would be to put a statement that taking advantage of embedded spaces is a bad idea somewhere rather than trying to change the symtax.  But such a statement is a A/S statement as things are defined in 2026, whether it is inline in 5321bis, 5322bis (as part of consolidated syntax) in a separate document
[11:45:04] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:45:19] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:45:22] Seth Blank leaves the room
[11:45:36] <Ned Freed> @JohnK Also MIME part V, sorta.
[11:45:37] <Trent> Did we lose Seth mid-sentence?
[11:45:42] <Murray Kucherawy> I've lost audio for Seth at least
[11:45:43] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:45:50] <John C Klensin> Lost Seth's audio after "for SMTP" - Alexey is still ok.
[11:45:57] <Murray Kucherawy> Same
[11:45:59] <Ned Freed> Same
[11:46:07] <Jay Daley> He's no longer listed as a media sender
[11:46:11] <Trent> I hear Alexey, Seth dropped, though. :/
[11:46:15] <Dave Crocker> @pete, I didn't suggest that ASs weren't done.  I said that their real-world utility has never been clear to me.  They have strong intuitive appeal, but that's different than actually being useful.
[11:46:44] Kris Shrishak leaves the room
[11:46:57] <brong> I'm having trouble capturing the full detail of this jabber side chat into the notes
[11:47:12] <Todd Herr> Seth tells me over Slack that he's lost internet connectivity
[11:47:48] Seth Blank joins the room
[11:47:55] <Dorothy Cooley> (because Slack doesn't require the internet...)
[11:47:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> We also have to be clear about what we mean by A/S. Some people use that term for "design document" and "problem statement", which I tend to agree with Dave tend to turn out not-so-useful. But docs with post-protocol advice on operations and implementation I do believe I've seen as effective.
[11:48:16] <John C Klensin> @brong: That is why you get some days to fold things together for the minutes :-(
[11:48:18] <Todd Herr> @dorothy - slack clients exist for mobile phones?
[11:48:48] kivinen joins the room
[11:48:48] <Dorothy Cooley> still the internet???
[11:48:48] kivinen leaves the room
[11:48:49] <John C Klensin> @Pete and that is why, despite their being 30 years old, 1122/1123 are reasonable models.
[11:48:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Will come up with examples post additional coffee and hours of awakedness.
[11:49:33] <brong> John: I'm just taking notes and leaving them in CodiMd for the chairs
[11:49:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> John, not hearing you.
[11:49:59] <Trent> Can't hear John K.
[11:50:07] <Alexey Melnikov_929> Do people hear John?
[11:50:10] <brong> no
[11:50:11] <Dave Crocker> no
[11:50:12] <Ben Campbell> no
[11:50:16] <Alessandro Vesely> no
[11:50:29] <brong> let's not bother trying to fix email, let's get into the internet real time video and audio business
[11:50:39] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[11:50:42] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[11:51:01] <Ben Campbell> @brong: that's the "RT" in ART
[11:51:09] <Jim Fenton too> My meeting Bingo card is filling up fast.
[11:51:12] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[11:51:14] <Alexey Melnikov_929> Do people hear me?
[11:51:18] <Ben Campbell> yes
[11:51:20] <Dave Crocker> @brong, email /is/ real-time video and audio, but with delay tolerance built-in.
[11:51:21] <kmurchison> yes
[11:51:21] <John (Clone) Levine> we hear alexey
[11:51:22] <brong> yes we hear you Alexey
[11:51:46] <John C Klensin> Every time I get in queue and you enable me to talk, it turns audio off.  Even time I try to turn on direct audio to help, it takes me out of the queue.
[11:52:03] <brong> John try just entering by yourself?
[11:52:14] <brong> with the "talk now" button on the right
[11:52:15] <Yoav Nir> @john: Just barge in.
[11:52:24] <Meetecho> John C Klensin: did you reject the audio permission when asked, possibly by mistake?
[11:52:40] <Meetecho> Chrome remembers a rejection, Firefox should always ask unless you told it to remember
[11:53:19] <Meetecho> If you're on Chrome, you can reset permissions here: chrome://settings/content/microphone
[11:53:37] <John C Klensin> @meetecho: no, audio permission is still active.  I see no mic when moved from Queue to sending and when it try to use direct audio to fix that, it takes me out of the queue.
[11:53:41] Simon Romano joins the room
[11:53:53] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[11:53:56] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[11:53:57] <Seth Blank> @john just try to jump in directly, please bypass the queue if you can
[11:53:57] <alex-meetecho> it might also be a matter of a disconnected microphone that is not accessible anymore when the application tries to get the mic
[11:54:02] Eric Mieth leaves the room
[11:54:16] <alex-meetecho> bypassing the queue would have the same effect I guess
[11:54:26] <Yoav Nir> So just click the "Send Audio". It's not like there's so many people talking that we need queue management
[11:54:28] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @john: Plugging in a headset solved my problem.
[11:54:32] <Meetecho> If so, then rejoining might help, as it would ask you for the device to share again
[11:54:57] Ekow Sam joins the room
[11:56:20] <John C Klensin> The substantive comment about 5321 and terminology is that we all need  to remember that 5321 (like 2821 before it) is a merge of multiple documents rather than the rewrite that would have been desirable --but that two WGs in a row decided against because of the risk of introducing inadvertent errors.  So some caution is in order unless we want to do that rewrite this time.
[11:56:39] Jay Daley leaves the room
[11:57:16] <John (Clone) Levine> @viktor I only care about them in submission,
[11:57:17] <Jim Fenton too> Does anyone even use the name in EHLO for anything?
[11:57:27] <John (Clone) Levine> SPF does
[11:57:44] <Jim Fenton too> SPF does? It uses envelope from
[11:58:01] <John (Clone) Levine> yes, it does if the envelope from is <>
[11:58:11] <brong> Keith Moore: the icons you press to start, they turn into a microphone with a stop signal when you're sending - you can turn it off there
[11:58:21] <Keith Moore> @brong: thanks
[11:58:30] <Jim Fenton too> huh, didn't realize that. Most things I have seen takes the EHLO argument as a comment
[11:58:33] <brong> Meetecho UX is a bit of a sore spot with many this week, but it's pretty learnable
[11:58:40] <John C Klensin> (going to try audio once more but, in case it doesn't work, let me reinforce John Clone's comment -- these things are more relevant to submission than to MTA-MTA actions.
[11:58:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> +1 to Dave. I think Keith and Viktor's positions are not mutually exclusive for the A/S. Document where things can and can't be used reasonably.
[11:59:08] <Ned Freed> Sorry, but EHLO IP address literals in SUBMIT are the thing that's not going away.
[11:59:08] <Keith Moore> @Dave: agree
[11:59:30] <Ned Freed> @Dave: Agree as well.
[11:59:58] <brong> Keith Moore: I'm keen for that draft, and also the "MUST be SUPER DOOPER ENCRYPED ALL THE THINGS" that's encoded into many specs as if they only go over the public internet
[12:00:32] <John C Klensin> @Meetecho: when I enter the queue, I see no mic icon against the yellow background.  WHen I'm moved to "Sending", still no mic icon.
[12:00:50] <John C Klensin> This is very odd because it worked fine Monday
[12:01:10] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[12:01:19] <Meetecho> John C Klensin: tried refreshing the page?
[12:01:50] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[12:02:03] John Klensin leaves the room
[12:02:13] John Klensin joins the room
[12:02:43] <Keith Moore> if this is intended to mean don't use single component host names, it would probably be clearer to say that... no matter where it is said
[12:02:59] <John C Klensin> @Meetecho.  Just did not.  Of course "refresh page" = "logout and log back in again"
[12:03:17] <alex-meetecho> John C Klensin: no mic icon shold appear for yourself in the "sending" box. your mic icon should turn blue though. I'm pretty sure  there's an error trying to access your mic. A dump of your javascript console would be helpful
[12:04:05] <alex-meetecho> and of course it now worked so the console log would be useless :)
[12:05:08] <Dave Crocker> This issue of domain name syntax in the email specs raises the same concern for inviting problems by duplicating syntax, rathr than citing the authoritative source for the syntax.
[12:05:51] <Keith Moore> maybe we should have a specific error code for  use with single-facet FQDNs..
[12:05:53] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Viktor: Documentation of that would be useful.
[12:06:29] <Barry Leiba> But does that belong in the protocol, or the AS?
[12:06:40] <brong> I was going to just say the same thing - does anyone know if they have ever worked / been used?
[12:06:51] <brong> we used to own 'hm' and intended to use that, but couldn't
[12:07:03] <brong> at least, the rights to do email on it
[12:07:14] <brong> before my time at Fastmali, but our main repo is still called hm.git!
[12:08:00] <Ben Campbell> Is anyone else getting a lot of audio degradation?
[12:08:00] <John C Klensin> @Meetecho: I think I know what happened -- offline conversation.:
[12:08:24] <John (Clone) Levine> MX for AI. 10 mail.offshore.ai.
MX for AX. 5 mail.aland.net.
MX for CF. 0 mail.intnet.CF.
MX for DM. 10 mail.nic.dm.
MX for GP. 10 ns1.nic.GP.
MX for GP. 10 ns1.nic.gp.
MX for GT. 10 ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
MX for GT. 10 aspmx.l.google.com.
MX for GT. 20 ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
MX for GT. 20 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
MX for GT. 20 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
MX for GT. 20 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
MX for GT. 30 ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
MX for GT. 30 ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
MX for GT. 30 ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
MX for GT. 30 aspmx2.googlemail.com.
MX for GT. 30 aspmx4.googlemail.com.
MX for GT. 30 aspmx5.googlemail.com.
MX for HR. 5 alpha.carnet.hr.
MX for KH. 10 ns1.dns.net.KH.
MX for KH. 10 ns1.dns.net.kh.
MX for KM. 100 mail1.comorestelecom.KM.
MX for LK. 10 malithi-slt.nic.lk.
MX for LK. 20 malithi-lc.nic.lk.
MX for MQ. 10 mx1-mq.mediaserv.net.
MX for MR. 5 mail.nic.MR.
MX for MR. 5 mail.nic.mr.
MX for PA. 5 ns.PA.
MX for PA. 5 ns.pa.
MX for SR. 10 spsbbank.SR.
MX for TT. 1 ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
MX for TT. 1 aspmx.l.google.com.
MX for TT. 10 ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
MX for TT. 10 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
MX for UA. 10 mr.kolo.net.
MX for WS. 10 mail.worldsite.ws.
MX for XN--MGBAH1A3HJKRD. 5 mail.nic.mr.
[12:08:40] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Dave, you're sounding more and more sympathetic to an "operations and protocol interactions" document, whether it's called an A/S or something else. Yes?
[12:08:48] <John (Clone) Levine> none of the vanity TLDs have an MX
[12:09:01] <brong> holy pastebin batman
[12:09:06] <brong> ouch
[12:09:07] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Ben, it's sounding pretty good here.
[12:09:11] <James Galvin> ICANN does not allow MX or single label names for email in gTLDs.  It is ccTLDs that do this.
[12:09:14] <brong> that's a few :)
[12:09:38] <James Galvin> Note that SAC053 discusses this and was the source of the requirement prior to the last round of gTLDS.
[12:09:47] <James Galvin> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-053-en.pdf
[12:09:52] Shuai Zhao leaves the room
[12:09:54] Shuai Zhao joins the room
[12:10:03] <Ben Campbell> @pete, must be my local connection.
[12:10:05] <Keith Moore> @James: I thought the problem was with vanity TLDs, not ccTLDs.
[12:10:30] Mladen Karan joins the room
[12:10:32] <James Galvin> not a problem with vanity TLDs because they are gTLDs, hence subject to ICANN consensus policy.
[12:10:58] Dominique Lazanski leaves the room
[12:11:00] <brong> sounds good to me
[12:11:22] <James Galvin> it was allowed prior to 2012 and there were issues with vanity TLDs prior to that.  .museum for example.
[12:11:51] <Keith Moore> @James: thanks for the clarification
[12:12:08] <John C Klensin> @Jim: hard to think of museum as a vanity TLD
[12:12:08] Mladen Karan leaves the room
[12:12:20] <James Galvin> :-)
[12:12:28] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> +1 Dave
[12:12:51] <brong> you're so vain, you probably think...
[12:12:52] Kirsty P leaves the room
[12:13:54] <Dorothy Cooley> can you say ear worm???
[12:14:21] <Jim Fenton too> Can we say it includes non-standards track documents with AD approval?
[12:14:27] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:14:28] <John (Clone) Levine> "I know it when I see it" -Potter Stewart
[12:14:45] <Keith Moore> @Jim: please let's keep this WG on a short leash
[12:15:13] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:15:25] <John (Clone) Levine> @jim I wouldn't call .museum vanity. It's always been tiny but it has real third party registrants
[12:15:27] <Jim Fenton too> @Keith I was assuming that the AD approval was a short leash :)
[12:15:52] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:15:54] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:16:11] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:16:16] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:17:35] <John C Klensin> @Jim: Only if we anoint ADs as Kings or something more magnificant.   Those are not procedural decisiosn, they are substantive technical ones.
[12:17:42] <Dave Crocker> @Pete, an implementation/operation guidance document could well be useful.  The concern I've raised is that the generic term A/S gets used as if the nature of its content is understood and useful, where I suspect it isn't.  For example, I'm not clear why the content being talked about concretely here doesn't qualify as a BCP.  (Not looking to resolve that now, just wanting to make sure there is clarity about substance.)
[12:19:09] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Dave: Good. I think we agree on what would be a good document, and we're likely just needing clarification on it's description and eventual document status.
[12:19:39] <Dave Crocker> @james (and btw, hi!): ICANN doesn't allow thos mxs now.  My understanding is that there is effort to change this.  Whether it happens or doesn't, it can be technically and operationally reasonable to have an mx record in a tld.  The determinant is policy, not technology.
[12:20:27] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:20:30] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:20:30] <John C Klensin> @Dave Unless we have reached the point that we should be replacing RFC6410 to eliminate Internet Standard entirely (which would, btw, make this effort focused on moving 5321/5322bis to Internet Standard moot) there aer still advantages to the two-level maturity idea.  BCP would elmininate those advantages.
[12:20:32] <Keith Moore> @Dave: I would argue that it's not technically and operationally reasonable to have an mx record in a TLD for reasons that really beyond our control.  IMO we're better off explicitly saying so.
[12:20:32] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[12:20:33] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[12:21:44] <Keith Moore> WGs can always be rechartered at IESG's whim, but creating the expectation that a WG charter will be extended might be a Bad Idea.
[12:21:53] <James Galvin> @daveC (hi!) - yes, policy is probably more at risk than technology.  but then again, there isn't any protocol police so who cares what's in the standard.
[12:22:11] Michael Palage joins the room
[12:22:16] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @John: Can an STD number not point to a BCP?
[12:22:30] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> (In addition to Internet Standards level docs)
[12:22:33] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:22:36] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:23:09] <John C Klensin> @Pete: Not as I understand 2026 and not as, fwiw, NEWTRK did.
[12:23:14] m joins the room
[12:24:22] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[12:24:26] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[12:24:29] <John C Klensin> And, of course, the IESG has declined to consider any proposals to change what STD numbers can be assigned to ... but the last try was now several years ago, so we could try again.
[12:24:44] <Dave Crocker> @john, I've no idea how your concern about BCP relates to what I typed, which was in the context of A/Ss.
[12:25:37] <Harald Alvestrand> this WG needs to conform to the current ruleset; attempts to change the ruleset can't be put up as blockers for this work.
[12:25:54] <John C Klensin> @daveL it was in response to a comment (by someone else, I think) that maybe we should just use a BCP rather than an A/S with the same content.
[12:25:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @John: I'm not committed to the idea, and honestly I couldn't care less about whether this document is labeled a BCP or an STD or something else. I agree that we should end up in the state where these documents are in some way pointed to together.
[12:26:01] Leandro Navarro leaves the room
[12:26:06] <Dave Crocker> @keith, there is already significant desire by owners of TLDs that are private to permit MXs and there isn't any obvious technical or operational reasons to prevent that, any more than one for example.com should be prevented, since they are sematnically the same.
[12:26:23] Markus Zeilinger joins the room
[12:26:36] <brong> To: support@coke
[12:26:37] Dave Crocker leaves the room
[12:26:50] <Keith Moore> @Dave: I disagree.   I think there are plenty of technical and operational reasons to disallow that, and I really don't care what the owners of TLDs think about it.  They don't get to redefine how email works.
[12:28:10] Yoav Nir leaves the room
[12:28:30] Doug Montgomery joins the room
[12:28:31] <brong> Keith Moore: yeah I agree, it's going to be too likely to collide with in-house usage as well
[12:28:47] <Keith Moore> @brong: among other things, yes
[12:28:49] <brong> lots of business setups are going to have address@dept
[12:29:01] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> FWIW: If the A/S (or whatever) is a single document, can both STD 10 and STD 11 point to it?
[12:30:08] <Ned Freed> I'm not sure people are saying require TLS. What I said is if we have an AS it needs to cover STARTTLS. And this statement should clearly state that some is better than none. I too am tired of "latest and greatest or bust" nonsense.
[12:30:24] <Keith Moore> IMO there should be a single reference to the currently acceptable TLS profile and other specifications should reference that rather than updating every specification every time the TLS recommendations change
[12:30:48] <Alessandro Vesely> I'd like to telnet plain text on occasion...
[12:31:04] <John C Klensin> @Keith.  With the understanding that I hate the idea of MXs in the root and single-component domain-parts of email addresses (and, given what we've said since 821, they _are_ a protocol and operational problem), the difficulty is that we did authoriize them with 5321, they are in use, and prohibiting them takes us into the very difficult territory of declaring an existing practice invalid.  That risks creating a "we don't pay any attention to that requirement, why should we pay attention to others".   On the other hand, IMO, a good rant (in a BCP, A/S, or just an Info document as to why they are a bad idea would probably be in order.
[12:31:08] <Keith Moore> but I will also say that it's NOT appropriate to expect all protocols and all usages to move forward in lock step with the current TLS recommendations
[12:31:31] <Keith Moore> @John: we can admit that we've made a mistake in the past.
[12:32:46] Doug Montgomery leaves the room
[12:33:08] <Jim Fenton too> @John Klensin You need both E2E and link encryption.
[12:33:24] <Jim Fenton too> because E2E doesn't protect metadata
[12:33:38] <Keith Moore> @Jim: agree.   And I think we do know how to do e2e encryption of email, though sorting how forwarding works might be a bit tricky.
[12:33:46] <John C Klensin> @Jim, yes, understood
[12:34:40] <James Galvin> Single label domain names are a security issue.  SAC053 (although old from 2012) tries to get at this.  It could use an update.  Nonetheless, the most notable thing that stands out for me is the use of single label names in certificates, which was disallowed shortly after SAC053.  Policies and standards can change but bringing them in to alignment now I would think makes it harder for either one to change back in the future.
[12:35:00] Michael Palage leaves the room
[12:35:29] Tadahiko Ito leaves the room
[12:36:38] <Hannu Aronsson> Thanks!
[12:36:47] <John C Klensin> @Jim (Galvin) can we discuss this offline sometime soon
[12:36:49] Ekow Sam leaves the room
[12:36:51] Dorothy Cooley leaves the room
[12:36:51] <Keith Moore> I frankly don't understand why anyone is trying to find a  way to make single-label names work, when they're broken on so many levels and always have been.
[12:36:55] Trent leaves the room
[12:36:55] <brong> Thanks everyone!
[12:36:56] Todd Herr leaves the room
[12:36:56] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[12:36:57] Ned Freed leaves the room
[12:36:57] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[12:36:58] John Levine leaves the room
[12:36:58] Kenneth Murchison leaves the room
[12:37:00] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[12:37:01] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:37:02] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[12:37:04] Autumn Tyr-Salvia leaves the room
[12:37:07] Viktor Dukhovni leaves the room
[12:37:08] Hannu Aronsson leaves the room
[12:37:09] kmurchison leaves the room
[12:37:17] Harald Alvestrand leaves the room
[12:37:19] Rohit Abhishek leaves the room
[12:37:22] James Galvin leaves the room
[12:37:23] Jim Fenton leaves the room
[12:37:23] John Klensin leaves the room
[12:37:24] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[12:37:26] <Seth Blank> Thanks all! Now to follow Pete's recommendation and get more coffee.
[12:37:31] S.Umamaheswari leaves the room
[12:37:52] Jim Fenton too leaves the room
[12:37:54] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[12:37:59] <brong> are we going to meet anywhere in Gather.town in particular?
[12:38:02] Alessandro Vesely leaves the room
[12:38:05] John (Clone) Levine leaves the room
[12:38:25] Simon Romano leaves the room
[12:38:25] Alexey Melnikov_929 leaves the room
[12:38:25] Alessandro Amirante leaves the room
[12:38:25] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[12:38:25] m leaves the room
[12:38:25] Hernâni Marques leaves the room
[12:38:25] Markus Zeilinger leaves the room
[12:38:25] Keith Moore leaves the room
[12:38:25] Nathaniel Borenstein leaves the room
[12:38:25] Murray Kucherawy leaves the room
[12:38:25] Seth Blank leaves the room
[12:38:25] andrew_liu leaves the room
[12:38:25] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:38:25] Shuai Zhao leaves the room
[12:38:25] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[12:38:25] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[12:38:25] K Mohan Raidu leaves the room
[12:38:25] Timothy Carlin leaves the room
[12:39:04] kivinen leaves the room
[12:39:40] <Alexey Melnikov> Thank you all
[12:40:07] d sibold leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[12:40:07] d sibold joins the room
[12:41:53] John C Klensin leaves the room
[12:42:03] Seth Blank joins the room
[12:42:34] kbarabad leaves the room
[12:46:50] d sibold leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[12:46:50] d sibold joins the room
[12:49:42] Pete Resnick (the other one) leaves the room
[12:50:21] Meetecho leaves the room
[12:50:52] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[12:57:28] brong leaves the room
[13:06:05] d sibold leaves the room
[13:20:37] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[14:01:15] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[14:29:17] Seth Blank leaves the room
[14:50:41] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[15:00:34] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[15:01:04] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[15:01:05] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[15:15:54] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[15:16:36] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[16:26:49] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[17:30:13] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[17:32:30] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[17:32:46] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[17:32:47] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[19:24:39] winshell@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[23:38:46] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[23:52:05] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room