Re: STARTTLS & EHLO: Errata text?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

Given the confusion about readings, I'd recommend modifying your
changes to make them brutally clear.  Suggestions below.

--On Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:04 -0500 Tony Hansen
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> If we were to write an Errata against RFC 3207, I'd suggest
> text such as the following (in Errata format):
> 
> Section:
>    4.2 Result of the STARTTLS Command
> 
> Old text:
>    The server MUST discard any knowledge obtained from the
> client, such    as the argument to the EHLO command, which was
> not obtained from the    TLS negotiation itself.
> 
> New text:
>    The server MUST discard any knowledge obtained from the
> client that    was not obtained from the TLS negotiation
> itself. The server state    is otherwise as if the connection
> had just been opened.

s/opened/opened, i.e., before a session has been established by
the client sending EHLO/
 
> Reason:
>    The example is misleading and has lead some people to think
> that    knowledge of an EHLO having been sent previously
> should be    remembered.
 
> Section:
>    4.2 Result of the STARTTLS Command
> 
> Old text:
>    The client SHOULD send an EHLO command as the
>    first command after a successful TLS negotiation.
> 
> New text:
>    The client MUST send either an EHLO command or a HELO
> command as the    first command after a successful TLS
> negotiation.

s/HELO command as/HELO command, or a command that does not
require that a mail transaction be open, as/

That can be done in several other ways, but I don't think you
can or should prohibit VRFY, EXPN, HELP, etc., there.

> Reason:
>    Since the state is reset to that of a connection having
> just been    opened, the requirement from RFC 5321 applies:
> 
> 	In any event, a client MUST issue HELO or EHLO before
> starting a 	mail transaction.
> 
>    The previous text implied that a client can get by without
> sending    one or the either.

 
> Now for the $64k questions:
> 
> 1) Is there consensus behind this viewpoint?

Wfm, with the changes above.

> 2) If so, does the text above cover the ground?

See suggestions above.

> 3) If so, who wants to file the Errata?

Having written it, is there any reason why you should not just
go ahead and do it?

    john