Return-Path: X-Original-To: secdir@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: secdir@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB64E17ACC05; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJdKalceHSu2; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9076F17ACBA1; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-476f4e9cf92so17853061cf.3; Fri, 04 Apr 2025 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1743790545; x=1744395345; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ubnRqNfWpJUH4QXnw52LARaMgeODC/2lfvGwKfHGDbw=; b=ajsg0R3KvKsPrebiAI4h+VBCUYepg6cJ2v7Ps42H74vSj3E6TvTM5AMsWvpdYb9nsp cN2yCCfiCPjpM3zLmpkjo/ySlAzTZwUSRoMuqrC5BYdmDG6sfNZorlMMrRYActcsFZEt 16oYLv+iBSxx7GW/o/FPKFwcJMNRIjNky/1vUQ0vtD3JVZDeNVqzN3GlGJbxdARxtwp6 87up9tq05sHKd2lCwsCpAfh86G0nCVW+WRJHzXrMzVNvda0O8l6X57ZR6iD/xOAy9Av6 TmWvN8lvZwDm/cfHf+a3sS8TzsuGQ2Z3oDuMHSLoC8lu9kvEm95yUj8GvqsiykEHfbP3 PV9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743790545; x=1744395345; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ubnRqNfWpJUH4QXnw52LARaMgeODC/2lfvGwKfHGDbw=; b=jijfTrKw7M5yeOYrif/wLOIvRT32L58OGcMdVfIUxF3ZAbz5o9FoNmvHQafMNO1D7K UK6mujUfXENJcPsMqesu9HNLaWvaTVFbqU868+RozUpHtAHhcw1HfAdWU7tLDS4D6Ogv yGHvmixJnpxhxN0JJCKiPcC93a2u3Do7CG1jtXfmILNnO/ictsOTov0Lke0lxWCht/fh 4oYcOJFEgkqE46GTRDtdUhevOeV2M+XUc3DiE1ExqsI7GKBBqjDobk8iRDTT6sHDfgXy sjbzF+ufqI2bS4HB3Dp57WwkCyaNAD2wjMmu7lp8fhQH2OPpxOCrd4gYUX0Ru4d3UkxA 6wIw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUZOTF7cjR1AaEo87TT2byYce6MA4HkTYz0x4yhKATpNzwWMwLFa24We2yUBvpDql/o//GrsWrq3mQLQ5hGaaQl59twhhZaNrkJE7v1LMuEgbM2gw==@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwKe3GplVp5T5rK1/OL4UyK7MFi7T9h1aAGJv3/7TAkNBa+3aRH vFXpHA6yYR4iQ85PLkuCvYcPA5zbwGv+PkYzngzT8FwmppNh7MUfDlazqUOOjKjIx+OxTmbKmA0 pxUZ5q5shMBd6CskT0q+slPXGP6MpQw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvmdPRcE/yu1OYP6yOuGaArgV3oK2FXX/WTL1UxS4EEto6+EcpR0kFDH+W8HLH nmAFNlB4gw8E0pR0iSVSAT5xmF15GMSNWZkAnU4iBAXB1oN50In+PUTuSbY9qE6pCzt9i2PnYDn F+zOnbmhGmqZHh77AfC04vx4sEpobabCFFnmZTBZldbgP3mtbv X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFTVkAZtO53OgmrA9jV/Pb+cAdFC22VrmbU+hl7zmErx+ed+zfzx7OZJTjoSUYU5iELQTuXQ2kMgHiGNif2cSg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a93:b0:476:7d74:dd10 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-47925958048mr67043631cf.19.1743790544874; Fri, 04 Apr 2025 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:15:32 -0400 X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1Jqo8n0PrN_xj0aR4nGumr2QcgL9cEoTIXcZQHO4EfkEkHisXZDRdS-lQhA Message-ID: To: "iesg@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fd70260631f7df74" Message-ID-Hash: MYCWBEG5X6H3OFHBIPIJPROEBKBMSVSB X-Message-ID-Hash: MYCWBEG5X6H3OFHBIPIJPROEBKBMSVSB X-MailFrom: d3e3e3@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: secdir , draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis.all@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bsecdir=5D_SECDIR_review_of_draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-42?= List-Id: Security Area Directorate Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000fd70260631f7df74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The summary of the review is Ready with nits. This is a re-review for version -42. I previously reviewed versions -38 and -32 of this draft. All good enough except for a few nits. Nits: When I look at Section 4.1.1.3, I see three unknown character glyphs: two right after the end of the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph and one between "destination" and "mailbox" later in that paragraph. Section 8.1.1.3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, "is required" -> "are required" Section 8.1.1.3, item (1), "non terminal" -> "nonterminal" Section 8.1.1.3, item (2), "a server and client SMTP" -> "an SMTP server and client" Suggest deleting both occurrences of "in principle". Either something applies or it doesn't. Asserting something qualified by "in principle" does not seem useful. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com --000000000000fd70260631f7df74 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directo= rate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by t= he IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just li= ke any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready with nits.

This i= s a re-review for version -42. I previously reviewed versions -38 and -32= =C2=A0of this draft.

All good enough except for a few nits.

Nits:

When I loo= k at Section 4.1.1.3, I see three unknown character glyphs: two right after= the end of the 1st sentence in the 2nd=C2=A0paragraph and one between &quo= t;destination" and "mailbox" later in that paragraph.

Section=C2= =A08.1.1.3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, "is required" -> &quo= t;are required"

Section 8.1.1.3, item (1), "non terminal" -> &= quot;nonterminal"

Section 8.1.1.3, item (2), "a server and client=C2= =A0 SMTP" -> "an SMTP server and client"

Suggest deleting both= occurrences of "in principle". Either something applies or it do= esn't. Asserting something qualified by "in principle" does n= ot seem useful.


Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2=A02386 P= anoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com
--000000000000fd70260631f7df74--