Re: [Uta] Proposed list of deliverables

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9B31A03C7 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:53:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fSDNBQuJhRsN for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B9B1A03C3 for <uta@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:53:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1391691213; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=oJX/zf9bBwCoCP1nVR+uMf59LAw6m3KVeBSlaxGdCfk=; 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=a2RWLE2skH4UnFK0ebHWhvqb7SahrmI5IZkaS2ziQFLOyJhBMSnCo7Z+IQSY5LtmrgS5cy ZyBhz4K8CLD53dtYrHrXgBYyny1eHjFXTBtefxYe0VOua+fy44v+oClhHGtp2R9cDkjXSa wjM6BO2LAIlNLirwoHJ4aI6fF3KPyoM=;
Received: from [172.17.128.75] (richard.isode.com [62.3.217.249]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <UvOFzABvgUkl@statler.isode.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:53:33 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <52F385D7.2020808@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:53:43 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
To: "Orit Levin (LCA)" <oritl@microsoft.com>
References: <8c42f5d1bd844db395eda269ca81a508@BL2PR03MB290.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <8c42f5d1bd844db395eda269ca81a508@BL2PR03MB290.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Proposed list of deliverables
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:53:38 -0000

On 24/01/2014 23:20, Orit Levin (LCA) wrote:
> All, Thank you very much for your feedback and discussion. We 
> encourage authors of existing drafts (and drafts in writing) to send 
> us preliminary agenda requests for presentation in London. To speed up 
> the WG progress, we would like to ask the authors of overlapping 
> drafts to work together in an attempt to merge the documents before 
> the submission deadline. Note that for a presented draft to become 
> considered as the basis for a WG ID, the document will need to be 
> scoped and targeted towards one of the proposed "deliverables". 

I would like to request adoption of draft-melnikov-email-tls-certs-01, 
which satisfy a part of the your deliverable 3.

> Leif and Orit - the chairs.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Orit Levin (LCA)
>> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:25 PM
>> To: 'uta@ietf.org'
>> Cc: Pete Resnick; Barry Leiba
>> Subject: Proposed list of deliverables
>>
>> Below is the list of deliverables for your consideration:
>>
>> 1. A threat analysis document containing a collection of known security
>> breaches to application protocols due to poor use of TLS (Likely an
>> Informational RFC)
>> 2. Applications' independent document recommending best existing and future
>> practices for using TLS (Likely a BCP or a Proposed Standard RFC)
>> 3. A set of documents, each describing best existing and future practices for
>> using TLS with a specific application protocol, i.e., SMTP, POP, IMAP, XMPP,
>> HTTP 1.1, etc. (Case-by-case likely a BCP or a Proposed Standard RFC)
>> 4. A document discussing (and potentially defining) how to apply the
>> opportunistic encryption approach (preliminary outlined in draft-farrelll-mpls-
>> opportunistic-encrypt-00.txt) to TLS. (Category TBD)
>>
>> Please, send your feedback to the list (including short +1s to indicate that the
>> direction makes sense to you).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leif and Orit - the chairs.