Michael,
They can and should speak for themselves, but as I understand
Dave's (and Barry's) proposal, changing authentication models or
requirements would definitely be excluded under "clean up only"
criteria.
If you, or others, disagree, that reinforces my impression that
we are going to need to work through the issues list, one at a
time, and decide on each on a case by case basis. FWIW, note
that authentication issues are listed in
draft-klensin-rfc5321bis-02 in G.4 and G.6. If you look at
those descriptions and think they are inadequate to identify the
issues, please suggest text (noting that, at this point, I [1]
am interested only in problem descriptions, not specific
proposals
best,
john
[1] As editor, working draft curator, and self-appointed keeper
of the list. That role changes, and my personal opinions become
irrelevant, as soon as there is a WG (with, of course, a
character and designated leadership).
--On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:04 -0800 Michael
<michael(_at_)linuxmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
Curious, does this cleanup fall under the auspices of email
security, as a whole? Wondering if it fits into the idea that
I proposed under the DISPATCH to consider a WG that covers
email security issues, including deprecating some of the older
recommendations that allow sending authentication over
insecure channels?
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp