Hello,
The Last Call for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 ended
yesterday. There wasn't any comments. This I-D will be evaluated by
the IESG on March 11. I am waiting for a recommendation from Dave
regarding the Secdir review.
At 03:35 06-03-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Yes, it is the deployment of a security add-on, though.
After reading the WG feedback, I prefer not to explore this question further.
I don't know what "actual substance" outside of yam's scope Dave has
been talking about.
I'll refer you to Dave for the authoritative answer. My
interpretation is that there can be a good argument in support of a
change but that change may not be within the parameters set in the
YAM WG Charter. It has to be demonstrated that a change "contributes
in a substantial and substantive way to the quality and
comprehensibility of the specification".
Mail is often overlooked during generic talks about Internet
security, where they primarily consider the web and the DNS. My
feeling is that the WG should attempt to correct such general
stance, but not at the cost of "leading to madness", in John's words.
Your last sentence sums up why it may not be a good idea for the YAM
WG to attempt to correct that.
For the specific 8BITMIME case, I also agree with what Ned has said.
It would sound grandiloquent to say that 8bit is dangerous because
it is one of the many ways to break DKIM. I don't think it is a real concern.
Noted.
I'll comment off-list on the last paragraph of your message as I will
be off-topic.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
