Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Fri, 25 July 2014 14:46 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B381B29A1; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XOPJmU8Xav4i; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DCA1B299E; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.159]) by mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s6PEjw63018670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:45:59 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com s6PEjw63018670
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1406299559; bh=0ekzvYPbjnMhTASssL9VJhTn9Pk=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=EOKEhlzFxUICKI7b34jIif5B84YFn62VZhZPcD44gCQvnSdLs4TgK29vcWBHkYOgG Eux3ZT0mjTQvLK1OwBmRtv/jBhR2iEo8Odpaiz+dMLsuGsPLvN34stJfcjKe5+JmdF T3ntZ5nc8gE1/+8BOlPXjCzkp4zOGTxG5KP9jFwg=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd54.lss.emc.com s6PEjw63018670
Received: from mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.25]) by maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:45:45 -0400
Received: from mxhub17.corp.emc.com (mxhub17.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.46]) by mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s6PEji3p020939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:45:45 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.186]) by mxhub17.corp.emc.com ([10.254.93.46]) with mapi; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:45:44 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "standards@taugh.com" <standards@taugh.com>, "mx0dot@yahoo.com" <mx0dot@yahoo.com>, "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:45:43 -0400
Subject: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-06
Thread-Index: Ac+oFxxgGXe7F4GzSCuyKhh8LP33+A==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712077860DD21@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: GIS Solicitation, DLM_1, public, Resumes
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DzXgrKETmP2WLDERuvbylrBpDL8
Cc: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:46:06 -0000
The -06 version of this draft addresses the topics raised in the Gen-ART review of the -05 version, except that Section 1 is still missing from the Table of Contents (possible xml2rfc problem?). Summary: Ready with nits. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:39 AM > To: standards@taugh.com; mx0dot@yahoo.com; General Area Review Team (gen- > art@ietf.org); ops-dir@ietf.org > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Black, David > Subject: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05 > > This is a combined Gen-ART and OPS-DIR review. > Boilerplate for both follows ... > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at: > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments > were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other > last call comments. > > Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: July 16, 2014 > IETF LC End Date: July 17, 2014 > IESG Telechat Date: August 7, 2014 > > Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues > described in the review. > > This draft is a short specification of a NULL MX resource record whose > publication in the DNS indicates that a domain does not accept email. > > I found one relatively minor issue. > > Minor Issues: > > Something is wrong with this paragraph in the Security Considerations section: > > In the unlikely event that a domain legitimately sends email but does > not want to receive email, SMTP servers that reject mail from domains > that advertise a NULL MX risk losing email from those domains. The > normal way to send mail for which a sender wants no responses remains > unchanged, by using an empty RFC5321.MailFrom address. > > Why is that treated as a security consideration? In light of the first > paragraph in Section 4.3 stating that it's acceptable for SMTP clients to > not send email to domains that publish NULL MX records, this text ought to > be recommending that such a domain (legitimately sends email but does not > want to receive email) SHOULD NOT publish a NULL MX record and SHOULD provide > an SMTP server that promptly rejects all email delivery attempt. It can > then further explain that not following the "SHOULD NOT" causes lost email > as described in the quoted text, and not following the "SHOULD" causes long > delivery timeouts as described in Section 2. I'd also suggest moving this > discussion to Section 4.3 so that it follows the first paragraph there. > > Nits: > > Section 1 is missing from Table of Contents. > > First paragraph in Section 4.1: > "address is not deliverable" -> "the email is not deliverable" > > Second paragraph in Section 4.1 assumes that all or most domains that > do not accept email also publish NULL MX records. That assumption should > be stated as part of the first sentence of the paragraph, as the immediately > preceding paragraph is about the benefits of individual domains publishing > NULL MX records. > > In Section 4.3, please provide text descriptions of the 550 reply code and > 5.1.2 enhanced status code. > > OLD > 550 reply code > NEW > 550 reply code (Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable) [RFC5321] > > OLD > 5.1.2 enhanced status code > NEW > 5.1.2 enhanced status code (Permanent Failure, Bad destination system > address) > > idnits 2.13.01 didn't find anything to complain about. > > --- Selected RFC 5706 Appendix A Q&A for OPS-Dir review --- > > A.1.1 Has deployment been discussed? > > Yes, and NULL MX records are already deployed in the DNS. > > A.1.5. Has the impact on network operation been discussed? > > Yes, in general, NULL MX records have significant operational > benefits as described in the draft. > > A.2. Do you anticipate any manageability issues with the specification? > > No. This is a minor extension to an existing use of DNS resource > records. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ----------------------------------------------------
- Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-… Black, David
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-apps… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-apps… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… John R Levine
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… John C Klensin
- SMTP 521 code Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: SMTP 521 code John C Klensin
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… John R Levine
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… ned+ietf
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… John Levine
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… Wietse Venema
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… Wietse Venema
- Re: [taugh.com-standards] Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir… ned+ietf