Hi Russ, Thank you for your comments. On 20/11/2015 21:36, Russ Housley wrote: > I support this document going forward. Below I suggest four improvements to > the document. > > (1) In Introduction says: > > Note that this document doesn't apply to use of TLS in MTA-to-MTA > SMTP. > > Can this be enhanced to include a pointer to where this can be found?
Currently this is discussed in draft-friedl-uta-smtp-mta-certs, but this is not a WG document, so I would rather not have a pointer. > (2) The next paragraph in the Introduction says: > > The main goal of the document is to provide consistent TLS server > identity verification procedure across multiple email related > protocols. > > Since this is a standards-track document, I think it would be better to say: > > This document provides a consistent TLS server identity > verification procedure across multiple email related protocols. Changed, thank you. > (3) Section 2 does a lot by reference, which is fine. I think it would help > the reader to duplicate a bit of context from RFC 6125, in particular > repeating the definitions of CN-ID, DNS-ID, and SRV-ID. Yes, I struggled with this as well. This would be lots of cut & pasted text. > (4) Section 3 needs to state first that the certificate passes certification > path validation as described in Section 6 of RFC 5280, and second passes the > email-specific rules in this section. Yes, this was implied. Added to my copy. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
