--On August 11, 2011 6:37:52 -0700 The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf