Hi Liam,

We have updated the errata report to use the correct version of the Corrected 
Text (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=8593).

Thank you!

Madison Church
RFC Production Center

> On Oct 4, 2025, at 10:14 AM, Liam Waddicor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> My apologies, I see I pasted the incorrect corrected text from my editor, the 
> last line is changed slightly in this one, the correct version is: 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> If the REQUIRETLS option or TLS-Required message header field is used
> when sending a message, it indicates the sender's preference for
> transport-level encryption: REQUIRETLS mandates that the message be
> relayed over a TLS-protected session, whereas the TLS-Required header
> field allows the sender to request that recipient-side policy
> mechanisms, such as MTA-STS and DNS-based Authentication of Named
> Entities (DANE), be temporarily ignored – for example, so as to overcome
> configuration errors when delivery takes precedence and the
> security of the message is unimportant.
> 
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 at 16:51, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8689,
> "SMTP Require TLS Option".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8593
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Liam W <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: Abstract
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> If the REQUIRETLS option or TLS-Required message header field is used 
> when sending a message, it asserts a request on the part of the message 
> sender to override the default negotiation of TLS, either by requiring 
> that TLS be negotiated when the message is relayed or by requesting 
> that recipient-side policy mechanisms such as MTA-STS and DNS-Based 
> Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) be ignored when relaying a 
> message for which security is unimportant.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> If the REQUIRETLS option or TLS-Required message header field is used 
> when sending a message, it indicates the sender's preference for 
> transport-level encryption: REQUIRETLS mandates that the message be 
> relayed over a TLS-protected session, whereas the TLS-Required header 
> field allows the sender to request that recipient-side policy 
> mechanisms, such as MTA-STS and DNS-based Authentication of Named 
> Entities (DANE), be temporarily ignored—for example, so as to overcome 
> configuration errors when delivery takes precedence or when the 
> security of the message is unimportant.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> This wording is slightly misleading as the 'TLS-Required: No' header field is 
> intended to ignore recipient-side policies, prioritizing delivery. However, 
> it is not meant for messages "for which security is unimportant", but rather 
> for cases like misconfigured recipient servers. The wording could be 
> misinterpreted as allowing insecure delivery for convenience.
> 
> The corrected text clarifies the distinction between REQUIRETLS and 
> TLS-Required.Emphasizes that TLS-Required is for exceptional cases (not 
> general insecurity).
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8689 (draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls-09)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : SMTP Require TLS Option
> Publication Date    : November 2019
> Author(s)           : J. Fenton
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Using TLS in Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to