This is a rough summary of the discussion about
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00. As usual, if your comments are
misinterpreted, post a message to the mailing list.
Please note that the WGLC on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00 ends on
Thursday 9th June.
26 May 2011 - Derek Diget suggested changes to the formatting of
Table 1 and some text with a SHOULD for RFC 6186.
26 May 2011 - John Klensin mentioned that the formatting can be left
to RFC Editor staff. He would be comfortable with incorporating the
suggested text if there was an implementation report on 6186.
27 May 2011 - Alessandro Vesely asked whether it was worth mentioning RFC 5451.
27 May 2011 - John Klensin pointed out that the problem should be
addressed in 5451bis.
27 May 2011 - Murray Kucherawy agreed with John Klensin.
27 May 2011 - John Levine suggested deleting the paragraph from
Section 3.2 which discusses about "an MSA is not able to determine a
return path". He also suggested deleting the note at the end of
Section 3.2 as it suffers from our endemic bad UI advice
syndrome. There was also a suggestion for a change to Section 3.3
which discusses pop-before-smtp. He asked about the definition of
"submission rights" (Section 6.1). He suggested moving Section 6.4
to a deprecated appendix. He pointed out that the note in section 8
appears to contradict the last paragraph in 4.2. There was also a
comment about whether Section 8.7 makes resolving CNAMES optional.
27 May 2011 - Ned Freed did not see why the requirement to check the
validity of
the MAIL FROM (Section 3.2) is a problem. He disagreed about
removing the note at the end of Section 3.2. He mentioned that the
text about "IP address spoofing" should be retained. He does not
object to changing this text to deemphazie the POP-before-SMTP
hack. He does not object to deprecating the special case of
postmaster (Section 6.4). He did not see any conflict in the
restriction in 4.2. He mentioned that Section 8.7 (CNAMES) is a
fairly new requirement and needs to be fixed.
31 May 2011 - Tony Finch mentioned that no-one tries mailing
postmaster using an MUA with broken authentication settings.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM co-chair
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
