[Uta] review comments on draft-newman-email-deep-02

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> Wed, 12 November 2014 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 B74DA1A1B56 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:16:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, 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 3lE3reF0Mz3s for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:16:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu [18.7.68.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70281A0451 for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:16:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074425-f79e46d000002583-52-5463175aba10
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 8E.EA.09603.A5713645; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 03:16:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id sAC8GPGI029251 for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 03:16:26 -0500
Received: from multics.mit.edu (system-low-sipb.mit.edu [18.187.2.37]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id sAC8GOxp020635 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 03:16:25 -0500
Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id sAC8GN0A008104; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 03:16:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 03:16:23 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
To: uta@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1411120316000.27826@multics.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nohslnhxiMKtbzOLU0WZGB0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBl3Jl9grVgLXvFtxtb2RsYv7B2MXJySAiYSNx78JUdwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMBsJolp/1+xQzhHGCWmf1sP5VxlkmibOAWqrIFR4vO2SUwg/SwC2hLTF84Em8sm oCIx881GNhBbREBA4vfPx2BxYQEzieW7V7KA2LwCjhKvu+4zg9iiAjoSq/dPgYoLSpyc+QTM ZhbQklg+fRvLBEa+WUhSs5CkFjAyrWKUTcmt0s1NzMwpTk3WLU5OzMtLLdK10MvNLNFLTSnd xAgOKBfVHYwTDikdYhTgYFTi4eVYlRQixJpYVlyZe4hRkoNJSZQ3Uiw5RIgvKT+lMiOxOCO+ qDQntfgQowQHs5II76evQOW8KYmVValF+TApaQ4WJXHeTT/4QoQE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyMhwc ShK81SBDBYtS01Mr0jJzShDSTBycIMN5gIangNTwFhck5hZnpkPkTzHqcrQ0ve1lEmLJy89L lRLnPSMKVCQAUpRRmgc3B5YIXjGKA70lzGsBMooHmETgJr0CWsIEtORbOMgHxSWJCCmpBkbO 5/zc7NP/XtC73VW9UdPt2Bt7n86H83uvL3CRWdj1hPvNvsXiCvlssxu8VwruYn0UytZ7zcj9 5eV/s43mafk0TONYe/mxsSbrwfMz3oorlzNLxrffqtMwSGV8Wfr3+bTvTXfL17E+XvbkjEGO ipjVutXKhW5hAqUr4jY7lr/dqjIp2aY86ZsSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgANgGVj3wIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/QeyOZIWl4EDEHKgScM1OM39_UY4
Subject: [Uta] review comments on draft-newman-email-deep-02
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: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:16:29 -0000

Just a few things that I jotted down while reading this on the plane
(nothing major)...

In section 5, the text "most TLS stacks that support TLS 1.2 will fallback
to TLS 1.0 without alerting the client" is describing the normal TLS
version negotiation, not the "fallback dance" which DKG is going to write
a draft about, so that text should probably be rephrased to avoid the
potentially confusing word "fallback".  (Maybe 'client' as well ... the
situation here for how (e.g.) openssl can be configured is kind of
complicated.)

Starting with section 7.2, the Examples are not numbered anymore.



Editorial minutiae:

In the Abstract, "mail user agents" needs an apostrophe

In section 4, I think there are two instances of "has deployed" that
should be "has been deployed".

In section 10.3, second paragraph, "a server certificates" is a
singular/plural mismatch; I would go with "a server certificate".

-Ben