ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

2011-08-24 17:21:20
--On August 11, 2011 6:37:52 -0700 The IESG 
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to
consider the following document:
- 'Message Submission for Mail'
  <draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> as a Full Standard

I have read this draft and support advancing it to Full Standard as written or with modifications suggested by others.

My comment on issues raised:

Russ Housley's discuss:

The document is more helpful to implementers if it has an informational downward reference to deployed signing technologies such as DKIM and multipart/signed (RFC 2480, RFC 1847) so that implementers know to consider the impact of message modification on those technologies. Normative language on that topic is best avoided so the document would be improved by removing the "SHOULD" related to those technologies.

I believe the alternative text that was proposed is fine, but I would also be fine with the current text and also with dropping the offending paragraph if necessary to advance the specification.

Informative reference to RFC 6186:

As much as I like 6186 and hope it deploys, there is not sufficient deployment today to justify a reference from a full standard.

Informative reference to RFC 5068 / BCP 134:

I think an informative reference would be helpful to readers, but if adding that reference would cause an approval delay then expedience is more important.

SMTP AUTH / STARTTLS:

I have seen SMTP AUTH and STARTTLS work well operationally between multiple independent implementations of submission. Problems with those technologies related to MTA relay are unrelated to this submission draft and thus need no additional text in this draft.

                - Chris

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