Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the well-written document! Other people have noted some things already, so I can only add small things. Section 3.1 Did you consider ABNF that would let new versions be defined without having to redefine the ABNF? Section 3.2 When fetching a policy, senders SHOULD validate that the media type is "text/plain" to guard against cases where webservers allow untrusted users to host non-text content (typically, HTML or images) at a user-defined path. All parameters other charset=utf-8 or charset=us-ascii are ignored. Nit: "other than" Section 5 Should the "enforce" text also mention the STARTTLS requirement from Section 4? Section 7.2 It's probably better to cite this as BCP 195 than RFC 7525 directly. Section 8.1 Recipients should also prefer to update the HTTPS policy body before updating the TXT record; this ordering avoids the risk that senders, seeing a new TXT record, mistakenly cache the old policy from HTTPS. It seems like this risk would be mitigated if the "id" value from the TXT record was required to also appear in the policy body as an identifier. But presumably that would cause issues elsewhere, as it is not the case in the current document. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
