Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 23 August 2011 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B10421F856B for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s72YP9d7XOWW for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF9621F8B2F for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so117063yxj.31 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ge4M7EFBufbRcx3NzUgQllFr9QxrkCN4bbCSmj3fiBM=; b=ifh2zborpwWok4aak6z1JnUqoQG6oxkyJuZ91strjcb7ONUgWu4kVUyouowKkXXBOm 8ojKxSnhhXXibRPLvqP4oDuWm3agyvrtSQg/X1lbd3otG542RryoYHyzS0FGkkJJEsu3 725S3uAp5dHbuzAvLIyAqvi7zj4yL1EJ85lgg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.116.13 with SMTP id o13mr4096361ybc.38.1314107709171; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.181.13 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com> <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:55:09 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ORwjcCBWip1mvtMIPWDtHmN3G3A
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVC6P3arC0eukFF44BORbXVxykDrB_3YryW4usMDwnCEKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:54:02 -0000

>> This is a pretty classic case of avoiding a problematic Discuss, through
>> an easy expedient.
>
> If YAM WG participants view it as such a case, they can voice their concern.

It seems to me, SM, that that's exactly what's happening.

> Dave suggested the following text:
>
>   "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
>    signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], and can render the
>    signature invalid.  This, in turn, can affect message handling by later
>    receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or
>    absence of a signature"

And I think that text is good.  I support changing the text to this,
and telling Russ that the WG is strongly in favour of having this in
there.  (And I'm not in favour of SM's suggested change to it.)

Having text such as this is important:
This is a common case, where something needs to progress on the
standards track, but something else has come along in the interim that
(1) does not change the existing protocol that's progressing, but (2)
implementors of the existing protocol now need to be aware of.

We're not changing the protocol, but it's critical that anyone looking
at the new Message Submission spec be aware of its effect on
signatures.  We MUST NOT remove this alert.

Barry