[Uta] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 15:56 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151216155626.27388.74440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:56:26 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/wdvuiWPco-npACZNkQhezAS_YOQ>
Cc: uta@ietf.org, uta-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org, leifj@sunet.se
Subject: [Uta] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Wijnen's OPS DIR review, on which Alexey promised to act:
> Hi I did the OPS-Directorate review
fordraft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07
>
> In general, I think this document is more or less ready to be
published.
>
> I do believe that section 5 does touch on a number of operational
> aspects (and specifically about scaling). The title of that section
> however is:
>     Compliance Checklist for Mail Service Providers and Certificate
>     Signing Request generation tools
> So it may not immediately attract attention from operators so that
> they can see operational aspects. Maybe that could be pointed out
> somewhere in the document.
>
> Section 5 also states that this document and its predecessors
> "don't address scaling issues caused by use of TLS in multi-tenanted
> environments." And it states that further work is needed in that
space.
> That is another operational aspect that may need to be pointed out
> specifically to operators.
>
> So maybe these 2 points can be highlighted in a saparate small sectoin
> titled "Operational Considerations".
> Just thinking aloud here. The point s have been made, but such a small
> section qould quickly point operators to the proper places for info.

Sounds like a good idea, I will add.

[Uta] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Benoit Claise