Hi Tony,
I have a few quick comments on draft-ietf-dane-smtp-00.
In Section 1:
"This memo does not cover message submission [RFC4409] [RFC5068]
[RFC6186], nor does it cover LMTP [RFC2033], since they use the DNS
in a different way than MTA-to-MTA SMTP."
The reference to RFC 4409 should be updated to RFC 6409.
In Section 1.1:
"Is the Transmitted: header useful enough to include in this spec?
Should it be dropped, or perhaps moved to another document?"
I suggest sticking to a SMTP versus Message Format split and dropping
the Transmitted: header field.
In Section 2:
"ADMD: An ADministrative Management Domain, as described in the
Internet Mail Architecture [RFC5598]."
The reference to RFC 5598 should be normative.
In Section 3.1:
"o A CNAME or DNAME pointing to a successful result."
RFC 5321 does not say anything about DNAME.
In Section 3.2:
"It then proceeds with TLS negotiation [RFC5246]. If the
client uses the Server Name Indication TLS extension ([RFC6066]
section 3) it MUST use the SMTP server host name as the value for the
ServerName field."
I am not sure whether to hand-wave by not getting in RFC 6125 details
(see Section 7.4 too).
In Section 8:
"If any of the DNS queries are for an internationalized domain name,
then they need to use the A-label form [RFC5890]."
I suggest using RFC 6531 as any future clarification for
internationalized email (SMTP) would go in there.
BTW, why go into intra-domain SMTP? The proposal could take a SMTP
client to SMTP server approach and anything not using Section 5 of
RFC 5321 is left unspecified (what Section 3.1 refers to as "insecure
delivery").
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
