Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F0A21E8068; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 l1GZ5TzPWzbs; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DAC21E8048; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:52:43 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
Thread-Index: AQHM/+yUuS4x68FErE2AlyFJQDNkCpZnVGYA//+MWmA=
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:52:43 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392808623C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1203111234320.12024@sjc-cde-021.cisco.com> <4F5E2806.7070808@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F5E2806.7070808@bbiw.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:52:44 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@bbiw.net] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:45 AM > To: Chris Lonvick > Cc: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org; Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-09 > > (copying Murray, in case he has further thoughts...) I agree with Dave's points, and would also add that this draft doesn't need to call out a "right" solution. It would probably be just fine calling out the pros and cons regarding choosing whether to cover the MT-Priority header field with a DKIM signature, and leaving it to the implementation to decide. -MSK
- [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-pri… Chris Lonvick
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp… Dave Crocker
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp… Murray S. Kucherawy