On 2016-04-25 15:29, Brotman, Alexander wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've incorporated much of the feedback we've received from the community,
> and would like to present updated drafts.
>
> * One of the most evident changes is that we've split the draft into two
> separate documents; one for the STS policy, and one for the TLS reporting.
> These are meant to replace the original SMTP STS draft
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts-00).
> * We've altered the name a bit from "SMTP STS" to "MTA STS" to be more in
> line with DEEP, and have also added elements for the DEEP registry.
> * After some deliberation amongst the authors, we've also decided to remove
> the DNSSEC-related options for the STS policy, which should simplify work for
> those wishing to deploy STS validation.
> * Within the TLS reporting, we've explicitly mentioned several failure modes,
> including those specifically relating to DANE and MTA STS.
> * We've also altered the report syntax to use JSON instead of XML.
>
Thanks,
In BA there was consensus (pretty strong at that) to adopt this draft as
a WG document.
This starts an adoption call for adoption as a WG document. Please
indicate your support or objection (with motivation) for WG adoption
no later than EOB (any TZ) May 1st
Cheers Leif
> Please see drafts here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brotman-mta-sts/
>
> And
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brotman-smtp-tlsrpt/
>
> We'd like others to review and encourage further discussion relating to these
> drafts. Thank you for your time.
>
> --
> Alex Brotman
> Engineer, Anti-Abuse
> Comcast
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
