---- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Newman" <[email protected]> To: "Orit Levin (LCA)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:43 AM > --On March 2, 2015 23:45:40 +0000 "Orit Levin (LCA)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > During the last meeting, I expressed my opinion (as an individual, not as a > > chair) that it would be reasonable to split the draft into two: > > 1. A "best current practices for e-mail" document expanding the tls-bcp > document > > and based on existing protocols and mechanisms. > > imaps and pop3s are not existing standards, so if we're recommending those > protocols we need a standards track document to define them. I think we should
Well, you might recall RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP. C. Newman. June 1999. It is a Proposed Standard so there is a precedent for doing this. I think that anything to do with e-mail is going to be fraught. So many people do so many things with it, based on standards or not, that I see consensus on anything as a challenge (a small hint thereof surfaced in the main IETF list discussion on draft-faltstrom.uri recently and then there is DMARC and then there is the fact that e-mail is store and forward and not end-to-end). So keep it as simple as possible else we will never produce anything that gains consensus. Tom Petch > recommend those protocols. As we need a standards track document anyway, I'd > prefer we keep the content together to make it easier on implementers/readers. > > > 2. A separate "proposed standard" document defining new mechanisms in order to > > improve email security, etc. > > These correspond to definitions in sections 5, 6, 7, the related procedures > > throughout the document, and the IANA Considerations. > > If the WG has rough consensus that sections 5, 6, and 7 are not proposed > standard quality, I will follow WG direction and delete those sections from the > document. However, if that happens I will not volunteer to edit a separate > document containing those sections. So unless someone else volunteers to edit > that, the decision is about "deletion" not about "splitting". So I'll ask you > the question: are you proposing deletion of sections 5, 6 and 7 as not suitable > for proposed standard? If so, please state the technical reasons you believe > they are not suitable or something actionable that would convince you they are > suitable. > > Thanks, > - Chris > > > There was no time for this discussion at the meeting, so we agreed to move it > > to the list. I would like to know what people think about this direction. > > Thanks, > > Orit. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Uta mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
