Re: [Uta] New proposal: SMTP Strict Transport Security

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Viktor,

On 22/03/2016 16:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:10:57AM +0100, Daniel Margolis wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback to both of you. I don't disagree; I think Viktor
>> makes a very solid point in favor of simplicity. In addition, a report-only
>> protocol could be extended to support arbitrary error reporting; an
>> out-of-band (e.g. HTTP) channel to share delivery failures between domains
>> strikes me as useful in the general case.
>>
>> Separately, because we're already assuming providers (both sending and
>> receiving) make a choice on implementing DANE and/or webPKI, I don't think
>> actually splitting the two makes it any more or less complex to implement,
>> or should discourage adoption of one or the other mechanism.
>>
>> So I would say I'm feeling a bit in favor of Viktor's suggestion, but I'd
>> like to chat a bit more with my co-authors and think about it first. ;)
> Great.  One more question.  I see that there are parallel
> non-overlapping threads on this proposal on tha UTA and IETF-SMTP
> lists.  Is either the "primary" forum for discussing this proposal?
> Should people be encouraged to cross-post?  Should the IETF-SMTP
> users who want to discuss it be encouraged to shift the discussion
> here?
I think so, this document is within the UTA charter (or at least very 
close to it).