[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00

Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Sun, 20 September 2009 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B863A67AE for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.979, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqRFA4zlGzis for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (PCH.MIT.EDU []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C6B3A67F5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (pch.mit.edu []) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n8KKQkcI004191 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:46 -0400
Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU []) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n8KKQfFV004182 for <secdir@PCH.mit.edu>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:41 -0400
Received: from mit.edu (W92-130-BARRACUDA-3.MIT.EDU []) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id n8KKQWBN021632 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (localhost []) by mit.edu (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7EE3F2022B9D for <secdir@mit.edu>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com []) by mit.edu with ESMTP id 1FJcDdfbcGTbuzj4 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received-SPF: pass (mit.edu: domain of rbarnes@bbn.com designates as permitted sender) receiver=mit.edu; client_ip=; envelope-from=rbarnes@bbn.com;
Received: from [] (helo=col-rbarnes-l1.local) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1MpS3H-0007XQ-Ep; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:26:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB68FF3.40107@bbn.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:26:27 -0400
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SECDIR <secdir@mit.edu>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation@tools.ietf.org
References: <4A83616C.1030506@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A83616C.1030506@bbn.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
X-BeenThere: secdir@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:25:47 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security 
area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these 
comments just like any other last call comments.

This document provides a set of observations on whether the SMTP Service 
Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport (RFC 1652) should be advanced from 
Draft Standard to Standard.  It matches the document against the 
criteria of RFC 2026, and poses questions to the IESG about the 
acceptability of the document for a full Standard, along three axes:
1. Proposed changes
2. Any other changes necessary (none listed)
3. Downward references

I do not believe that this document raises any security concerns beyond 
those of the underlying document (RFC 1652).  All of the proposed 
changes are simple updates to current references (e.g., adding RFC 5321 
in addition to RFC 821).  None of the proposed changes or downward 
references are related to the security of the protocol.

secdir mailing list