IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Emailcore] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-emailcore-as-28 ietf last call Secdir review

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Fri, 08 May 2026 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: emailcore@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: emailcore@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85CD4EB4B9B3 for <emailcore@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778257483; bh=MPqsp5JcUea8MrywZqMiGC8T8qftk8w5otQAT+l9NEM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=HN6i8jFRHh83ghOgUYuQW/R5bIw+JeP31EHmDAoVAwXwn/1uFZw7IV3DXqhS/31RN 2pORTdZyG5UflviZXsJl76Vbro1QgwQ0sL+aW9LHJPsI7X3FeyIKLPoJG1MBqaIXNd o/Jt8QjYwLIelfe2dqgVN3RmaIIRT9g0s+DTb3So=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=episteme.net
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JYoQxBmS2IOV for <emailcore@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F25EB4B996 for <emailcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.31] (unknown [172.16.1.31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4gBvZz4Wt7z11ybk; Fri, 8 May 2026 11:24:27 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=episteme.net; s=mail; t=1778257472; bh=MPqsp5JcUea8MrywZqMiGC8T8qftk8w5otQAT+l9NEM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=RggSYgLz2A0pFOd2yFHHginWDyup2FYDezshrqQvRdLDOKu1IfDteicsvNkNTeNdS /rpLQTIQRy6urQO/CvFGUFM/+6MrkoOkVkKg6bkClLGUWnpWEUjIMAU0DM5+Hdy1ro T6bZhOvOimEoLfhT4MNmmsroN+XZx4xSdryQxRD0=
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 11:24:26 -0500
Message-ID: <9C88DE56-ACDE-40B4-A42E-312F01624400@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SyyLN4VvN+-E5aAAiiOS_zf6YvaLiUitr7iGxT8g_7eeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAChr6Sy4RJ66gUXR=U9GbKjEu-+7z5EFZVDtqPbtrkomPfoK_w@mail.gmail.com> <7278d338-d2f7-43e8-8fc5-8feab1ba7323@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAChr6SyyLN4VvN+-E5aAAiiOS_zf6YvaLiUitr7iGxT8g_7eeA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no
X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=-0.101, required 5.5, FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT 0, FROM_HAS_DN 0, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM 0, TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL 0, __HDRS_LCASE_KNOWN 0, MIME_GOOD -0.1, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM 0, NO_RECEIVED -0.001, FREEMAIL_TO 0, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO 0, __BODY_URI_ONLY 0, ARC_NA 0, MISSING_XM_UA 0, TO_DN_SOME 0, MIME_TRACE 0, __THREADED 0, RCPT_COUNT_THREE 0, __NOT_SPOOFED 0
Message-ID-Hash: BGGQYETIHVUQX3673ORBJL6NQPUY42GW
X-Message-ID-Hash: BGGQYETIHVUQX3673ORBJL6NQPUY42GW
X-MailFrom: resnick@episteme.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, emailcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Emailcore] Re: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-emailcore-as-28 ietf last call Secdir review
List-Id: EMAILCORE proposed working group list <emailcore.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emailcore/zYOi5Fmsp2kx3Wh5rTr9H34JON4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emailcore>
List-Help: <mailto:emailcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:emailcore-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:emailcore@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:emailcore-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:emailcore-leave@ietf.org>

On 7 May 2026, at 19:12, Rob Sayre wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 4:19 PM Martin J. Dürst 
> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Rob, others,
>>
>> On 2026-05-08 06:19, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>>> Because you don't understand that the large ones will want to accept
>>> cleartext email while narrower installations will not.
>>
>> There is an important word missing here: *some* narrower 
>> installations
>> will not want to accept clear text. But even with that word added, we
>> don't know how many. If you have any actual data, please provide it.
>
> Oh, I don't know. But this one is in RFC 9945.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9945.html#appendix-B

A single request for data does not for sealioning make.

And there's no need to publicly on the list try to police the behavior 
of others. Talk to the chairs offlist if you think there's a problem.

> The question is whether it's compliant to ship a TLS-only one.

But is the question really about "compliance"? Again, there are no 
Internet Protocol Police. These are voluntary standards. Why should 
anyone care about compliance? If you want to ship a TLS-only one, have 
fun. The document is just saying that doing so will not be 
interoperable.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status