IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: STARTTLS & EHLO: Errata text?

John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com> Sun, 01 February 2009 20:25 UTC

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n11KPIHT004394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:25:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n11KPIjO004393; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:25:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n11KPGnQ004387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:25:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from john+smtp@jck.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LTisU-0004fl-3u; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:25:14 -0500
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:25:13 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@santronics.com>
cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: STARTTLS & EHLO: Errata text?
Message-ID: <337319EC6C440FBEFE1CF113@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4985FCD8.8040305@santronics.com>
References: <497DE492.4080506@pscs.co.uk> <497DED29.70402@att.com> <497ED420.30708@pscs.co.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901271403220.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <497F86CB.60904@att.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901281434440.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <498088B8.9040404@pscs.co.uk> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901291310080.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4981C0D5.1010401@pscs.co.uk> <4981C6BD.2040900@att.com> <37F39FF37390694B69567838@PST.JCK.COM> <4981E1AB.9000002@att.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901301832470.4795@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <49835DE2.3030403@santronics.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0901312021190.14750@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4984C49C.5030401@santronics.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0902011706190.10756@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AE5689449BAC89829F0DD5E7@PST.JCK.COM> <4985FCD8.8040305@santronics.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

--On Sunday, February 01, 2009 14:49 -0500 Hector Santos
<hsantos@santronics.com> wrote:

>...
> Tony, SM, John,
> 
> Ok, let me try it this way:
> 
> I was thinking of 3207 with text similar to:
> 
>      The secured SMTP client MUST resend the EHLO command and
> the
>      secured SMTP server MUST be prepared to issue an 503
>      for any out of sequence commands by legacy 3207 clients.

In spite of the fact that the 503 code has been stable since 821
was published, I'd be a lot happier with the above if it said
"issue a 'command out of sequence' reply" or "issue a 'command
out of sequence' reply as specified for SMTP [RFC5321]" than
"issue a 503...".  Just aesthetics about what is specified where.

I don't have enough in-depth familiarity with 3207 clients to
have a useful opinion about whether 

	(1) that text is needed or whether 
	
	(2) text that (i) recommended sending the second EHLO
	and (ii) indicated that any client that does not send
	the EHLO MUST be prepared for a "command out of
	sequence" code and MUST then either issue the EHLO
	forthwith or abandon the connection (following SMTP and
	TLS rules for doing that)

Would be the more appropriate fix.
 
>...

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email