Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-17

Alexey Melnikov <> Thu, 22 March 2018 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E502C12D88D; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XcoWSFY0ubjq; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF96F126D05; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1521731839;; s=june2016;; bh=/wpIYyrWjvBLLPvwQdWnqiEp0xfrDkQaLVkEf2Mdk3g=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=AZgCjPGuilyT8oVaVPjovy9iklUToYGtV/4iGsQIkbyv+hHptFDxkWYC9nnHyPlfZv8VcI MnNbhzy+02jKK78GMeObDgKs7MYHCg7gMthoedj6b/79/wAaW4rGhul0i/XJC8RH+dvj4m iyqIYMiFf6NKFKk/KtNGEjkhAPMGtjo=;
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:1998:21d2:a616:ae1e:8775] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:17:18 +0000
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>,
References: <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:17:21 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-17
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:17:23 -0000

Hi Phillip,
To followup on the IANA issue from your SecDir review:

On 08/03/2018 19:39, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Specific issues
> The DNS prefix _smtp-tlsrpt is defined. This is not mentioned in the IANA
> considerations. It is a code point being defined in a protocol that is outside
> the scope of UTA and therefore MUST have an IANA assignment and is a DNS code
> point which is shared space and therefore MUST have an assignment.
> If no IANA registry exists, one should be created.

After looking at this in more details, I think a new registration in the
registry being created by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is exactly what you
are asking for. I think registering _smtp-tlsrpt there should be
straightforward. However I don't think this document should be delayed
until after draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is done. So if
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is taking time, the proposed registration can
be moved to draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf itself.

> In general, the approach should be consistent with the following:
> [RFC6763] S. Cheshire and M. Krochmal "DNS-Based Service Discovery" RFC 6763
> DOI 10.17487/RFC6763 February 2013
> It might well be appropriate to create a separate IANA prefix registry
> 'report'. That is probably easier since this prefix does not fit well with the
> existing ones.
> _smtp-tlsrpt._report

I think this is covered by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.

Best Regards,