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

S Moonesamy <> Sat, 06 March 2010 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6285F3A8982 for <>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.068
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2U9zD80xljz0 for <>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5A93A873F for <>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:05:37 -0800
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <>
Subject: Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:09:14 -0000


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.


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

S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary