Re: [ietf-smtp] [Uta] New Version Notification for draft-levine-addition

Hiya,

As is probably obvious I don't agree with this. But I can raise
it when the draft gets to IETF LC, so we don't need to bang on
about it.

On 26/01/2019 17:40, John R Levine wrote:
> After reading all the discussion I posted an -02 which takes out all
> mention of ESNI.  Here's why.
>
> The most important issue is process.  ESNI is currently described only
> in an early I-D which will not turn into an RFC for a long time.  If I
> reference it, this draft will be stuck behind ESNI, also for a long
> time. If I don't, this draft should be able to progress quickly.  Once
> it's published, if you want to add an ESNI clause, you can do so by
> expert review, no RFC needed.
An informative reference is all that'd be needed and wouldn't hold
up your draft at all. The above is bogus unless you make the ESNI
I-D a normative reference, which a) you didn't do in the -01 draft
and b) isn't needed as you wanted to avoid 2119 terms.

> More substantively, I would be surprised if any MTA ever implements ESNI
> because it makes no sense for mail.  On the web, different hostnames
> lead to different web sites, and clients expect the name in the TLS cert
> to match the hostname in the request.  In mail, we've never expected the
> name of the MTA to match the domain of the recpient, and it is quite
> normal for a million different domains to point their MXes at the same
> host with the same name, e.g. aspmx.l.google.com.
>
> If you don't want your SNI to give anything away, you just do what mail
> systems have done all along, use the same MX names for everyone. 
> There's no problem for ESNI to solve and certainly no reason to go to
> the effort to put all the ESNI glop in the DNS.
I don't accept the above paras demonstrate sound logic, but we can
debate it when you get to IETF LC.

Cheers,
S.

> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp