Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt
John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Mon, 05 March 2012 15:17 UTC
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7334421F8799 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:17:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, 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 OSUKagxwx+xD for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838E321F879A for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 07:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1S4ZaK-0003sT-FJ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:12:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:16:52 -0500
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Message-ID: <F18FCE60D4ADE6406D5AAFA1@PST.JCK.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
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:17:01 -0000
--On Sunday, March 04, 2012 20:20 -0800 ned+ima@mrochek.com wrote: >> Dear all, > >> This draft was triggered by email software providers when >> we discussed the eai implementation with them. Any >> comments are welcome. > > First, I have to say that given the present state of play of > the DNS, I am extremely skeptical that a new RRTYPE can > actually deploy soon enough to be useful. And that's assuming > you are able to get it through the process quickly, which is > also unlikely. > > Sadly, the DNS folks are in total denial as to the issues and > AFAICT see no value in working on mechanisms that would > improve the situation. >... I agree with Ned, but want to add two additional comments (speaking for myself only): (1) Whether done with a new RRTYPE or with SRV, this is a major protocol change. The right time to suggest it would have been well before RFC 6531, and the EAI core more generally, were approved so that any relevant requirements could be built into the base protocol if the WG agreed that it were a good way to go. Whether it is desirable or necessary should have been something determined during the experimental protocol period, not put into a draft right after the core standards documents were published. Certainly we have known since RFC 4952 was published in 2007 that there were disadvantages of having to await an EHLO response before knowing whether the server was EAI-capable. As part of that protocol change, it very significantly updates RFC 6531 (and the model in RFC 6530) by changing the expected DNS lookup model from "just like 5321" to "use different RRTYPEs in different ways". It should certainly say that. At this point, any suggestion of this change, such as that in the current document, requires a very careful analysis of the various cases that might be relevant. The few sentences in the Security Considerations of this draft are completely inadequate in that regard. In addition, if we were going to do this, there are other dependencies that should be explored. For example, the model that the WG adopted for VRFY and EXPN in order to deal with the fact that those commands can be issued outside a mail session is really fairly ugly and may turn out to be too delicate. If one could know without going through SMTP extension handshaking (i.e., the EHLO response) whether the server supported SMTPUTF8 capability, then one could hugely simplify the VRFY/EXPN model from what is specified in RFC 6531. It seems to me that this document is not complete unless it at least examines that issue. (2) We've tried to use DNS entries to definitively advertise capabilities since the WKS record when the domain name system was initially designed. Our success rate has been terrible: misconfiguration, different types of relationships between operators of application servers and DNS zone operators, and plain sloppy behavior and mistakes have contributed to both Type I and Type II errors, causing problems severe enough that WKS was formally deprecated. Substituting SRV for an indicator plus MX, as Ned suggests, would presumably help with the problem, but, if SMTPUTF8 is deployed before this suggestion is fully approved, the situation would still require that clients get a sequence of tests correct which, as Ned suggests, is likely to lead to nasty failures. FWIW, when the SMTP extension model was being considered, several types of pre-HELO capability announcements, including trying to go back to DNS announcements, were considered. The EHLO model, despite some disadvantages --including the one to which you are now reacting-- was chosen as the best alternative. Moving to a DNS announcement model would, IMO, create an alternate SMTP extension model. At least IMO, having such alternatives is never a good thing unless there is really no other choice. In addition, speaking as co-chair... (3) To ask a blunt question, if you consider this capability important, would you suggest that people defer implementing the capabilities in RFCs 6531-6533 until this proposal can be approved in the IETF? If the answer is "yes", consider that, even if one ignores the DNS deployment issues, an AD would need to be mildly insane to consider it for approval without getting the EAI WG to process it. Now consider what that would mean given EAI's general speed and efficiency. This draft would have to be improved to the point that the WG could actually consider it. The WG would have to decide to consider it and, in the process, decide whether to defer POP and IMAP and the supporting documents until after this was either approved or definitively rejected (i18n for POP and IMAP is pretty useless if messages cannot be delivered). Given EAI's track record --and your track record for document updates-- I think it would be wildly optimistic to believe that this would result in less than several years delay in SMTPUTF8 deployment. Do you think that is worthwhile? john
- [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt John Levine
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Arnt Gulbrandsen
- [EAI] Email and new RRTYPES (was: Re: Fw: I-D Act… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt John Levine
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Tony Finch
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Tony Finch
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] Email and new RRTYPES (was: Re: Fw: I-D… ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] Email and new RRTYPES (was: Re: Fw: I-D… Tony Finch