On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks '
<draft-hutzler-spamops-04.txt> as a BCP
This seems a good document, but could probably still use a bit of
polishing.
A practical issue I have with this doc is that the recommendations are
relatively few, and most of them are rather generic or vague.
Haven't we learned more on email BCPs by now? For example, this
document says nothing on backup MX's accepting mail for accounts which
do not exist, just a very generic:
o MDAs SHALL NOT accept mail to recipients for which that MDA has no
arrangement to perform delivery.
One generic question: what about the case where an organization X has
backup MX at ISP Y? How will that reflect to:
o For email being received from outside their local operational
environment, email service operators MUST distinguish between mail
that will be delivered inside that environment, from mail that is
to be relayed back out to the Internet. This allows the MTA to
restrict this operation, preventing the problem embodied by "open"
relays.
Mostly editorial comments:
1) Is the scope of the title, "Email Submission Between Independent
Networks", too narrow, as the document discusses relaying and delivery
BCPs as well?
2) The document specifies in a couple of places that authentication
MUST be performed, but does not specify _what_ kind of authentication.
This is then discussed a bit in Section 5. I note that there is no
mandatory-to-implement authentication mechanism (or at least it isn't
spelled out), so interoperability may be hampered. Should this
document try to specify such?
3) The following text:
For example, SMTP AUTH using a secure authentication method like
CRAM-MD5 or DIGEST-MD5 may be sufficient. However, in some
environments, it is impractical to use one of the secure methods,
meaning that SMTP AUTH would be transmitting the username and the
password in clear text over insecure networks.
.. seems to be confusing. First you say "a secure authentication
method", but then you say using such would be impractical because the
password would be sent in the clear text.
This is not good.
I doubt the IETF is OK with calling such authentication methods
"secure". Secure authentication methods _don't_ send stuff in the
clear text, period. I think this paragraph, and maybe more, needs
some serious editing.
4) As process nits:
7.2 References -- Informative
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
.. RFC2119, when used, must be a normative reference. Likewise,
you'll need to add a "null" IANA considerations section.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf