Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 10 March 2010 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7696D3A6973; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:53:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iw-LHvUJrX9r; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B373A6807; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp89-089-144.bbn.com ([128.89.89.144]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1NpODv-000J2y-Mh; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:53:28 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240808c7bd6ec9fd46@[128.89.89.144]>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100308111008.0db293e0@elandnews.com>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303103218.0ba092a0@resistor.net> <p06240804c7b4bcb4b668@[169.223.34.205]> <6.2.5.6.2.20100308111008.0db293e0@elandnews.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:44:38 -0500
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Cc: yam@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:53:24 -0000

At 11:49 AM -0800 3/8/10, S Moonesamy wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>The YAM WG discussed about the issues raised during the Sec-dir 
>review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 [1] and concluded that:
>
>   (i) The presence of an option negotiation mechanism is not believed to
>       facilitate attacks or raise any security issues not already endemic
>       in electronic mail and present in fully conforming implementations
>       of RFC 5321.
>
>  (ii) Since MIME semantics are transport neutral the 8bitMIME option
>       provides no added capability to disseminate malware than is
>       provided by unextended 7bit SMTP.
>
>Regards,
>S. Moonesamy
>

Thanks for the reply.

Steve