IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] mtp-tlsrpt-04 review

Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> Wed, 05 April 2017 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jgh@wizmail.org>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE8E129447 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlKARr6UEB3J for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wizmail.org (wizmail.org [IPv6:2a00:1940:107::2:0:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B97126C89 for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a00:b900:109e:0:c5d6:c61b:f5e0:b51f] (helo=lap.dom.ain) by wizmail.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_RC100) id 1cvnOD-00004y-PX for uta@ietf.org (return-path <jgh@wizmail.org>); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:02:33 +0000
To: uta@ietf.org
References: <52dde16a-a3bb-5844-7daa-a349def85049@wizmail.org> <80676A32-78CB-4FFA-AEE4-94DA95102B98@dukhovni.org>
From: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>
Message-ID: <a2a6e5f5-ff3b-272b-abda-b49fe23a485d@wizmail.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:02:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <80676A32-78CB-4FFA-AEE4-94DA95102B98@dukhovni.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Pcms-Received-Sender: [2a00:b900:109e:0:c5d6:c61b:f5e0:b51f] (helo=lap.dom.ain) with esmtpsa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/4YlFbGPCGRWSgziMtJiLd9RMb2s>
Subject: Re: [Uta] mtp-tlsrpt-04 review
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:02:41 -0000

On 05/04/17 16:46, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
>>
>> The example in Appendix 9
> 
> All I see is "Section 10, Appendix 1" and "Section 11, Appendix 2".
> What is "Appendix 9"?

Apologies.  Section 9, being Appendix 2.


>> CNAME indirections should be explicitly discussed
>> (I'd like them permitted).
> 
> Where would you like to see CNAMEs permitted?

Perhaps Section 3, initial paragraph.


> [ Oh, and by the way, it seems the authors have concluded that
>   JSON policy has rough consensus.  I am not sure that's accurate,
>   or at least don't think that accurately represents MTA implementors.
> 
>   Where do you stand on the JSON issue?  I am not looking forward to
>   adding a JSON parser to Postfix, or requiring all the O/S platforms
>   to provide a common C JSON API (is there one that is widely available)
>   as a pre-requisite for installing Postfix. ]

I do not intend to add a JSON parser to Exim, and would make my
anti-bloat views known to any of the other Exim developers.

[I have the same views on any need for https, cf. MTA-STS]


However, I don't think using JSON for the reports defined by this
draft would require an MTA-based parser.

-- 
Cheers,
  Jeremy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email