Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 06 March 2010 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6285F3A8982 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.068
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2U9zD80xljz0 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5A93A873F for <yam@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o26F98xb018541; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1267888155; x=1267974555; bh=TZHhsAWaA55ykdQ+r2yYiqadtdQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VPbgVMcul3n+QJpbzrKu0JPtmahlTGsm50YLEX+aYZVgt09JCF0yW7KdAcZ8zGNM2 ilQEHMHyJWXUoCM0Bea/3NdO9B2Lf5q1RaqJn6vGxBNZOFDLrApz6eALJKDn6dUQh3 81aMjRDolhs7hhgNG8z2PD31DQv4xb04UuAICLTI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100306054559.08fe2908@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:05:37 -0800
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B923E1E.4070201@tana.it>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303103218.0ba092a0@resistor.net> <4B90ED1C.8040905@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20100305051249.09f24f38@resistor.net> <4B923E1E.4070201@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Subject: Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:09:14 -0000

Hello,

The Last Call for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 ended 
yesterday.  There wasn't any comments.  This I-D will be evaluated by 
the IESG on March 11.  I am waiting for a recommendation from Dave 
regarding the Secdir review.

At 03:35 06-03-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>Yes, it is the deployment of a security add-on, though.

After reading the WG feedback, I prefer not to explore this question further.

>I don't know what "actual substance" outside of yam's scope Dave has 
>been talking about.

I'll refer you to Dave for the authoritative answer.  My 
interpretation is that there can be a good argument in support of a 
change but that change may not be within the parameters set in the 
YAM WG Charter.  It has to be demonstrated that a change "contributes 
in a substantial and substantive way to the quality and 
comprehensibility of the  specification".

>Mail is often overlooked during generic talks about Internet 
>security, where they primarily consider the web and the DNS. My 
>feeling is that the WG should attempt to correct such general 
>stance, but not at the cost of "leading to madness", in John's words.

Your last sentence sums up why it may not be a good idea for the YAM 
WG to attempt to correct that.

>For the specific 8BITMIME case, I also agree with what Ned has said. 
>It would sound grandiloquent to say that 8bit is dangerous because 
>it is one of the many ways to break DKIM. I don't think it is a real concern.

Noted.

I'll comment off-list on the last paragraph of your message as I will 
be off-topic.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary