ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Keywords for "SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation"

2002-07-14 17:56:14

At 02:22 PM 7/14/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
First of all, I don't find, anywhere in the document, a statement
that the originator, in attempting to use CONNEG, is authorizing
any intermediate MTA that might touch the message to alter its
content.

For a specification that is designed to permit a sending agent to know how to tailor the form of a content, it is difficult to imagine what benefit there can be in having that specification contain a statement saying that an implementation is "authorized" to tailor the form of that content.


  Nor do I find in the "security considerations" an
explanation of that authorization and the associated risks.

You clearly have a better sense of this issue than I do, since I do not see that there is a problem.

So, feel free to offer some text.


  We have
typically tried to keep that transmission stream as opaque to
message content as possible.

Yup.  It sure is scary to try to do new things.

Except when there is a well-established basis for doing them.

I am not inclined to dismiss that established basis solely because it came from a non-IETF effort, particularly given the scale of success of that prior work.


But, unless I read the above incorrectly, you are suggesting that
        * Hence intermediate/relay MTAs have the right/authority
        to make content changes based on their inferences about
        what the receiver wants.

Let's try to stay on the current topic. Arguing about generic principles and then trying to dismiss current work based on some subtle variation in interpretations of that abstract discussion is not going to be productive.

You might want to review prior work on interprocess communication, which explored trade-offs between a "sender makes right" model and a "receiver makes right system".

The significant difference between esmtp/connect and multipart/alternative is exactly this distinction.

(Hint: sender makes right has nearly always been the preferred IETF choice. esmtp/conneg is sender makes right.)


Could you explain what you did mean?

What I mean is very simple:

The behavior that is specified in esmtp/conneg is a careful increment in functionality and is based on extensive prior experience and is known to be useful.


----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850