Re: [imapext] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Barry,

We are fine with the proposed text. We will update the draft with this text and release a new version (10). 

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 7:31 PM
To: draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org; imapext@ietf.org
Cc: imapapnd-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; SM
Subject: Re: [imapext] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Authors and working group:
In light of this discussion, I suggest that we replace the content of the Security Considerations section with this:

NEW
   This extension provides additional information that cooperative
   clients can use as an optimization, and does not introduce new
   security concerns.  This extension does not address abusive clients
   that intend to consume server resources, and servers will still have
   to take action to disconnect and/or restrict access to clients that
   exhibit abusive behavior.
END

Please comment, and if there are no objections, please make the change in another revision.  Thanks.

Barry

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just suggesting that you could cut out the scenario, leave the 
> last sentence and say it's because of a possible attack on resources, 
> 'resources' being a short way of describing the scenario laid out.  If 
> some other attack comes out that is mitigated in a similar way that 
> uses 'resources' in another way, you are covered.  It also gets rid of 
> the extra text that I don't see as necessary.  But leave it if you 
> think it's fine.

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
imapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext