IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] Review of draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-04

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 9B875129C56 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 jKSZBtT0z8Ye for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387A7129C5A for <uta@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1493382083; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=2I1KAZKk30/KE47BIC6vRYJ0uX6/9PEtYBL6UHlDTUc=; 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=oFwaR/9fb9Bv1Ogf+6TnFWvX9vQEAOTXEGSxOxpPQFh+xDXrPKzODMsRlk2yN8XbetnJJ/ ylIXmDohdpVBCUS1AMBeQx81lcWsfsXqrYnaRlYZlU27NxOFDo5DAmW0+CTofLq7qKXlVj aDy7EmIFpScd1qfRO2fQCTVp2Y/huTk=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <WQMzwgBV0paZ@waldorf.isode.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:21:23 +0100
To: Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com>
References: <ba6b46ba-ad6b-2270-0113-3e8006ef5a8b@isode.com> <CANtKdUdS3jv2jWKVprcSy=ZwrJtBBqz4MXL7_He75PNyv_c2-w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <56420a3c-0176-3f16-681a-6f7265d28f93@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:21:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
In-Reply-To: <CANtKdUdS3jv2jWKVprcSy=ZwrJtBBqz4MXL7_He75PNyv_c2-w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F528360C1A7432218D9333AC"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/sW9BxvUkXmws2Ga30gw_TZDju8I>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Review of draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-04
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:25:03 -0000

On 23/04/2017 12:58, Daniel Margolis wrote:

> Thanks. Comments inline, mostly ticking off changes. :)
>
> I have pushed all my changes in response to this to the git repo and 
> they should appear in our next draft.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexey Melnikov 
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com <mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com>> wrote:
  [snip]
>
>     8) If you want to allow for extensibility, you probably need an
>     IANA registry of fields allowed, so that developers can find them
>     easily. I can help with some text.
>
>
> I'd appreciate any suggestions.
>
> Is there a need for that now, though? I would not want to overengineer 
> this, either. :)

All IETF documents are required to have the "IANA Considerations" 
section. IANA will manage registries if they are created by an RFC.
If you know that a particular protocol or format field is going to be 
extensible, it is much better to define a registry now than be forced to 
create one in a hurry later on.

So just create an issue for this (if you haven't already). I can help 
with some text.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email