On 6/23/22 10:44 AM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> said:
On 5/27/22 7:51 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
- section 3.2: I wondered why no mention of MTA-STS or
DANE? Could/should we say that MTA implementations
SHOULD include support for such strictness?
Hi Stephen,
Although these technologies (RFC 8461 and RFC 7672) seem sensible, I
don't think we authors have a good handle on whether they are widely
deployed enough to justify a SHOULD in a BCP. We will reach out to folks
in the email community for guidance.
MTA-STS is in wide use. All of the large mail systems I know publish
mta-sts records and a lot of the smaller ones.
DANE is less widely used but Viktor would have the numbers. I know that
Comcast buth publishes DANE records and checks them on their outbound mail
so they might be willing to share some observations.
Hi John, thanks for sharing these insights. I'll reach out to a few
Comcast colleagues regarding DANE. We the authors of course want to
recommend what's best current practice, thus the interest in how widely
deployed these technologies are. Another wrinkle is that MTA-STS is
specific to the email world, whereas DANE has at least been defined as a
more generalized technology and deployment might vary across application
protocols (e.g., I know there has been some adoption of DANE in the XMPP
community but it is far from ubiquitous).
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
