Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07

Paul Hoffman <> Fri, 28 August 2009 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9FE28C13D for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDGaKGpuADai for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Balder-227.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AFF28C24E for <>; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7SKvX6x090272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:57:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240806c6bdf3e9c412@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <p0624083ec6bdad5d3ccd@[]> <>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:57:32 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Pete Resnick <>, Harald Alvestrand <>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, Xiaodong Lee <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:58:08 -0000

At 7:51 PM +0100 8/28/09, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>While I agree that these should have been fixed, I personally don't think it is a big deal.

Nor do I, that's why I didn't send this to the IESG or the IETF general list. However, Tim and Pasi have asked SecDir reviewers to comment on all aspects of a draft we are reviewing, not just the security aspects. I did not, for example, comment on the grammar issues that I strongly suspect will be fixed by the RFC Editor. However, if I were an IESG member reading the document for the first time, I would immediately ask why the abstract says "do not deploy implementations of this draft" for something that is meant to be an Experimental RFC.