[Uta] BCP portion of draft-ietf-email-deep / relaxing MSP requirements

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 02 April 2017 21:35 UTC

To: uta@ietf.org
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <5978a631-11d5-ff65-d1ba-d446a7af3b20@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 17:35:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/v3UYHjhDheHXtRgw9YrtgrvRiDE>
Subject: [Uta] BCP portion of draft-ietf-email-deep / relaxing MSP requirements
Precedence: list

After thinking about this a bit, it seems to me that if any portions of 
draft-ietf-email-deep should be BCP, it's those that describe 
requirements for MSPs.   Those are indeed practice, not protocol.

In the interest of expediency, I'd be fine with making those portions of 
MUA-STS non-normative and keeping them in the same document.   I'd also 
be happy to separate that out into a separate BCP document, though it 
would take a bit longer.   But if we do that, I'd really like to get 
consensus on the technical bits of MUA-STS first.

Also, based on input from the Fastmail folks in Chicago, I think it 
makes sense to relax the MSP requirements somewhat.   The goal of 
MUA-STS is to get all MUA-server links robustly encrypted. Different 
MSPs can quite reasonably choose different ways of doing this, based on 
whatever works for their operations and customers.   If an MSP does this 
by some other means than the MUA-STS protocol extensions, the goal is 
still met.

Keith

[Uta] BCP portion of draft-ietf-email-deep / rela… Keith Moore