Hello,
As the YAM WG supports the change in the security considerations
section, the revised Section 5 will be as follows:
"This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not is not believed to
raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and
present in fully conforming implementations of [RFC5321], including
attacks facilitated by the presence of an option negotiation mechanism.
Since MIME semantics are transport neutral the 8bitMIME option
provides no added capability to disseminate malware than is provided
by unextended 7bit SMTP."
There is a mistake in the numbering of Section 6 as Acknowledgements
does not belong in the IANA Section (noted by Amanda Baber).
A revised I-D is not needed. These two changes will be made through
a RFC Editor note if the IESG approves draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03.
There is also a non-blocking comment from Lars Eggert, Area Director,
about the example domains.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
