[yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 09 March 2010 20:55 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 B65013A69A6 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:55:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, 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 gfmRwNMoP6Wv for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40BB3A6991 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o29KtDa9016277 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:55:18 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1268168120; x=1268254520; bh=0bMPHQ/UKDtGvXQtDefzS4kijlA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=sZskH2PnD1SKKBBmYw+9tHaiBw4cACV0yv4vAveOUb/Gewqm149hzngT6hwIpfKtL sUtUkJUpffvVxurfgYRidWF0mhz6XxZuEBtHPC6dvE+yKwWAkubr/wIt98wFie5idI XI0uLxCpFrf06CwJw17IWs3s8ymy4ddXy9is7Vyg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100309122913.05f7ae18@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:50:09 -0800
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [yam] Status: 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: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:55:17 -0000

Hello,

As the YAM WG supports the change in the security considerations 
section, the revised Section 5 will be as follows:

  "This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not is not believed to
   raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and
   present in fully conforming implementations of [RFC5321], including
   attacks facilitated by the presence of an option negotiation mechanism.

   Since MIME semantics are transport neutral the 8bitMIME option
   provides no added capability to disseminate malware than is provided
   by unextended 7bit SMTP."

There is a mistake in the numbering of Section 6 as Acknowledgements 
does not belong in the IANA Section (noted by Amanda Baber).

A revised I-D is not needed.  These two changes will be made through 
a RFC Editor note if the IESG approves draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03.

There is also a non-blocking comment from Lars Eggert, Area Director, 
about the example domains.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary