Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Fri, 09 December 2011 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6897321F84BA; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:09:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EidT0UdMRlZo; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0A021F8485; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it (webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB9M8PrG022173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Dec 2011 23:08:26 +0100 (CET)
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it pB9M8PrG022173
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=vCB0jUFyVXbas5049hm3EwljAQdeX4Rc9HX+PSa90r4ir2Q+EyuF9jCOvo1TBPo2o +fU12NHqpDoqcU5TCC9UAgfNjSxjBN/EtN3kzgK76gT9zeX6iyywvZWmiYoKR/lyyST 4bpdA+VeKWiL1G7zhJctSKpkhn/SJs8OcBMf52Q=
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:08:25 +0100
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-X-Sender: claudio@webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C154ED@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1112092304300.94458@webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1112021220220.15127@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C154ED@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:09:20 -0000
>> Major Issues: >> >> The only major issue which I really see in the specification is the >> impact not only on DNS because of the increased number of queries, but >> on the efficiency of the e-mail glogal system in general. >> >> It is true that in 9.3 this topic is correctly described, and a >> possible alternate query mechanism depicted. However the real issue >> which I see is not a load on DNS, but a greatly increased "timout risk" >> on MTAs. One of the "experiment" scope should also be to verify the >> impact that adding this new feature has on the whole messaging system >> in terms of MTAs efficiency and effects of timeouts. We already know >> well that, one of the first very evident effects which happens when DNS >> "is slow" is a serious disruption on MTAs performances. Even if DNS is >> performing correctly, adding more queries might trigger more easily >> these performance disruptions in MTAs. >> >> I this suggest an explicit "guidance" on how to handle the experiment, >> and monitor also this issue, and evaluate its impact. Probably section >> 9.3 and the introduction are the appropriate spots to do this. >> >> This is even more important if the adoption of this specification grows >> significantly because it proves useful. > > Thanks for that suggestion. Since as you say Section 9.3 already gives > this a reasonable treatment, I've instead extended Section 7 to draw > specific attention to what 9.3 says, and asked that participants in the > experiment pay close attention to how the added DNS work might cause MTA > latency. Is that sufficient? I have not read it yet, but I think so! >> Minor Issues: >> >> Section 3. Discussion >> >> The title of the paragraph seems not so clear for the reader. It could >> be better to name it either "Scope of this specification" or "Roles and >> Scope of this specification". > > I've changed it to simply "Roles and Scope". ok. > >> Also some sentences probably need a better phrasing: >> >> "Participation in this protocol is divided into three parties:" >> >> I would suggest: >> >> "The actors involved into the implementation of this (experimental) >> protocol are:" > > Someone else already suggested changing it to "The context of this > protocol involves the following roles", so I'll just leave that as-is. ok. > >> and below >> >> "An Author participates in this protocol if it..." --> >> "An Author implements this protocol if it..." >> >> "A Verifier participates in this protocol if..." --> >> "A Verifier implements this protocol if it..." > > Done and done. ok. >> ------- >> >> Section 4.1 Extension to DKIM >> >> the sentence: >> >> "domain-name" and "key-h-tag-alg" are imported from [DKIM]. >> >> I guess it means: >> >> for the definition of "domain-name" and "key-h-tag-alg" see [DKIM] >> (section x.y). >> >> There was long discussion on other WGs about correct handling of ABNF >> cross refereces between RFCs, thus the above change is more clear and >> conformant to that discussion, too. > > I've used the "are imported from" numerous times before without any resistance or concern. But anyway, I've changed it to "are defined in". ok. > >> Section 5. Interpretation >> >> I would add an explicit sentence stating what to do in case the >> Verifier fails in the verification. Just a reference to DKIM procedure >> for this cases, in order not invent further potentially different >> actions. > > I've changed the first sentence so that it starts with: "For each DKIM signature that verifies, ..." Is that sufficient? yes. > >> ------- >> >> Section 9.1 and Section 4.2 >> >> I suggest to add explicitly the explanation from section 9.1: >> >> "the hash and encode steps are done merely to convert any third-party >> domain name to a fixed width in the construction of the DNS query." >> >> also to section 4.2, bullet point 5, where the convertion of the domain >> name is specified. > > I'd prefer to add a forward reference from 4.2 to 9.1 rather than > copying text. That's done now in the working copy. that's ok. too. all the best! ;-) > > Thanks again, > -MSK > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca
- [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kuchera… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kuc… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kuc… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Dir review for: draft-kuc… Murray S. Kucherawy