IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] mtp-tlsrpt-04 review

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 05 April 2017 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 C5AFB1273E2 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fV8jmLOtceKd for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E4C4129477 for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.31.30.48] (gzac12-mdf2-1.aoa.twosigma.com [208.77.215.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8C917A330A for <uta@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:46:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ietf-dane@dukhovni.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <52dde16a-a3bb-5844-7daa-a349def85049@wizmail.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:46:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: uta@ietf.org
Message-Id: <80676A32-78CB-4FFA-AEE4-94DA95102B98@dukhovni.org>
References: <52dde16a-a3bb-5844-7daa-a349def85049@wizmail.org>
To: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/kPrEI3-Svy5gi4AC2NQ2Wut9184>
Subject: Re: [Uta] mtp-tlsrpt-04 review
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:46:37 -0000

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
> 
> The example in Appendix 9

All I see is "Section 10, Appendix 1" and "Section 11, Appendix 2".
What is "Appendix 9"?

> CNAME indirections should be explicitly discussed
> (I'd like them permitted).

Where would you like to see CNAMEs permitted?

[ Oh, and by the way, it seems the authors have concluded that
  JSON policy has rough consensus.  I am not sure that's accurate,
  or at least don't think that accurately represents MTA implementors.

  Where do you stand on the JSON issue?  I am not looking forward to
  adding a JSON parser to Postfix, or requiring all the O/S platforms
  to provide a common C JSON API (is there one that is widely available)
  as a pre-requisite for installing Postfix. ]

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email