Re: [Uta] Last Call: <draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt> (Updated TLS Server Identity Check Procedure for Email Related Protocols) to Proposed Standard

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sat, 21 November 2015 14:41 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 428321AC431; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 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=-0.585, 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 A9D8lciNWG50; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [217.34.220.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF08A1AC42F; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:41:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1448116894; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=jKlIe3bLz9XwIxm/cHvgdbuPthD1RLYwKKBEYhTOSlM=; 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=aWBOibTBB8achnuHfI8nK/9C+4veXzOnCsjdxGERX7xHA66pLw4OpPvVDJnbKtmyLTWsi4 aXYsDnpzyLIbf49+LaGM5LGJIfzz/EiAXTiYzNmUQa80Y6AtAEQo5FsPoNj5yKpYn4cXdx Stnd0xymhB39dbWDIEx0cVVK3SR/cvY=;
Received: from [192.168.0.5] (cpc5-nmal20-2-0-cust24.19-2.cable.virginm.net [92.234.84.25]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VlCCnAAlTrGj@statler.isode.com>; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:41:33 +0000
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20151120142925.18541.72151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0C545746-E755-487D-8F0C-BB5981C2C5EE@vigilsec.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56508299.9070505@isode.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:41:29 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
In-Reply-To: <0C545746-E755-487D-8F0C-BB5981C2C5EE@vigilsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/baaj8a6NWQsZSHYU_wvBeoyK3os>
Cc: uta@ietf.org, uta-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] Last Call: <draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt> (Updated TLS Server Identity Check Procedure for Email Related Protocols) to Proposed Standard
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: <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: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:41:36 -0000

Hi Russ,
Thank you for your comments.

On 20/11/2015 21:36, Russ Housley wrote:
> I support this document going forward.  Below I suggest four improvements to the document.
> 
> (1)  In Introduction says:
> 
>    Note that this document doesn't apply to use of TLS in MTA-to-MTA
>    SMTP.
> 
> Can this be enhanced to include a pointer to where this can be found?

Currently this is discussed in draft-friedl-uta-smtp-mta-certs, but this
is not a WG document, so I would rather not have a pointer.

> (2)  The next paragraph in the Introduction says:
> 
>    The main goal of the document is to provide consistent TLS server
>    identity verification procedure across multiple email related
>    protocols.
> 
> Since this is a standards-track document, I think it would be better to say:
> 
>    This document provides a consistent TLS server identity
>    verification procedure across multiple email related protocols.

Changed, thank you.

> (3)  Section 2 does a lot by reference, which is fine.  I think it would help the reader to duplicate a bit of context from RFC 6125, in particular repeating the definitions of CN-ID, DNS-ID, and SRV-ID.

Yes, I struggled with this as well. This would be lots of cut & pasted
text.

> (4)  Section 3 needs to state first that the certificate passes certification path validation as described in Section 6 of RFC 5280, and second passes the email-specific rules in this section.

Yes, this was implied. Added to my copy.