Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 14:28 UTC
Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 039AD126DCA for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:28:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ySSJP-uA875H for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC9A126CB6 for <uta@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:28:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2271; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510928926; x=1512138526; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=eMFMjB77zUtTDfJEFlDnOwEdorBp5ldRAlZZ/PvOZP8=; b=K6IpfQ2bEE1r6W54hcSfFuXSeaHwW3hDRLOG/bkmS6uF2Pe3nx5dCM5n 4uKT7Xh6qbTzGHxwK00pKsh8TIOG9yrJZtEsV/4j38XYsH2anncytQ+/w JP9wCpB1ZW0GORIVKsVZNftuHwxpHg2/yLC0SHJKPnkVotwhNrwsY2rWP E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B7AQAR8Q5a/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYUOhCaLE5AIJphzBwOFOwKFKRUBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUfAQUjZgsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYohqhiCJ4sBAQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBAQESD4M0hW4LgneIMIJjBaI+hEmCKI4bgX2KB4dIljKBOjUjgXQ0IQgdFYMuhF9AiwwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,409,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="280090"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2017 14:28:44 +0000
Received: from [10.61.227.56] ([10.61.227.56]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAHESh1v024081; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:28:43 GMT
To: uta@ietf.org, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
References: <32C4B825-C3D6-4C25-9C1D-BCF4354CA326@dukhovni.org> <ed552e3e-00ce-5329-f38b-f763feacc17c@sunet.se> <7FD24C09-99A6-4847-BCE7-4455F62188FC@dukhovni.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5d638100-295a-8b05-7958-470abaaf3ac3@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:28:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7FD24C09-99A6-4847-BCE7-4455F62188FC@dukhovni.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2mfLDpOqW7bJsvcgvBafja4cNnIEMHjgL"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/5G_k1bxDYpB_0FLT9R-wqK1ZO6Q>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:28:48 -0000
I've been watching the back and forth and trying to get my hands around the technical issues between the two cases. The closest I see for a technical explanation in this thread is this: On 11/17/17 3:55 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > As I pointed out in another message, BOTH REQUIRETLS=YES > *and* REQUIRETLS=NO need to be encapsulated in headers, but > the YES case *also* needs an ESMTP extension, while the > NO case does not. It makes sense to define both in the > same document. For those of us who were not in the room, can someone explain the case in technical detail for *not* doing REQUIRETLS=NO in the same document? Jim? Eliot
- [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Salz, Rich
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Jim Fenton
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed ned+uta
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Leif Johansson
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Eliot Lear
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Jim Fenton
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed Viktor Dukhovni