Re: [Acme] Last Call: <draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-08.txt> (Extensions to Automatic Certificate Management Environment for end user S/MIME certificates) to Proposed Standard

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 25 June 2020 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902733A0FFD; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M9h8bVi-mnML; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531433A1028; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.29.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05PJvHAw008506 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1593115054; x=1593201454; i=@elandsys.com; bh=yIcQGT740i61z3jHIUjF2p1XUWjcPwAS9hC6GKjVaIY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jo0Rjp5Dp1bohvIb59BNYeQRw9OTOq/GMhk55EF/ECnNTG2Q9wRq0OiaobopbHYVr a9cxtzkdA/NeKI2oN26VrJySv81T2kJX48Wb/dDz/yjyNrjnHFcfIG8EDmodYvbA1z enszqiSF9Y+oo/0Gai/zFFU/XKhdgasAqtl1SXUI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200625123422.0ee35bb8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:56:05 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: rdd@cert.org, acme@ietf.org, draft-ietf-acme-email-smime@ietf.org, acme-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <159311144759.26518.18413097757444174694@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159311144759.26518.18413097757444174694@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/f-KhFVjqL705XKMu6X8wa0MPAvc>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Last Call: <draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-08.txt> (Extensions to Automatic Certificate Management Environment for end user S/MIME certificates) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:57:48 -0000

Hi Alexey,
At 11:57 AM 25-06-2020, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Automated Certificate Management
>Environment WG (acme) to consider the following document: - 'Extensions to
>Automatic Certificate Management Environment for end
>    user S/MIME certificates'
>   <draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-08.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

In Section 3.1, there is the following in Point 3 and 5: "The message 
MAY contain Reply-To header field."  Is the duplication a mistake?

Point 6 states that its purpose is to "prove authenticity of a 
challenge message".  How does DKIM prove authenticity [1]?

Why is there a requirement that the message has to pass DMARC 
validation?  Has forwarding been taken into account [2]?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Please see Section 5.4 of RFC 6376.
2. That does not work well with SPF.