Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-crocker-email-arch-11

From: "Patrick Cain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:33:21 -0400

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document is well thought out, but I have some minor comments:

1. The security considerations sections has lots of information and
pointers. It looks pretty complete. It even has the
every-smtp-rfc-mandatory-reference to spam. :)

2. The document uses a bunch of traditional x.400 messaging terms (e.g.,
MHS, MTA, MUA) to describe the SMTP mail system. I know it's picky, but if
we're going to write a document that uses x.400 terms we may want to cite
that work in an informal reference.

Pat

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:03:44 -0700

Patrick Cain wrote:
> 2. The document uses a bunch of traditional x.400 messaging terms (e.g., MHS,
> MTA, MUA) to describe the SMTP mail system. I know it's picky, but if we're
> going to write a document that uses x.400 terms we may want to cite that work
> in an informal reference.

Patrick,

Thanks for the review.

Leaving out x.400 references wasn't an accident, but it also wasn't obvious
which way to go.  For one thing, in email presentations, I sometimes ask who has
not heard of x.400 and it has become a substantial number.  (And, for reference,
we developed the original UA/MTA model before X.400, through IFIP WG 6.5.)

Perhaps more substantive is the potential for confusing the reading:  email-arch
provides its own definitions, and they are not the same as X.400's.  This is
especially true for ADMD.  (It's a little bit like the discomfort of trying to
be precisely use the actual ISO definitions of the 7 layers, when talking about
IETF networking protocols.  Approximation works well; precision doesn't.)

Nonetheless, yeah, it probably makes sense to give a nod to that history.

I suggest simply adding a citation to the first reference to UA/MTA in email-arch:

> 1.1. History
> 
> The first standardized architecture for networked email specified a simple
> split between the user world, in the form of Mail User Agents (MUA), and the
> transfer world, in the form of the Mail Handling Service (MHS), which is
> composed of Mail Transfer Agents (MTA).*[RFC1506]* The MHS accepts a message from one
> User and delivers it to one or more other users, creating a virtual
> MUA-to-MUA exchange environment.

[RFC1506]  Houttuin, J., A Tutorial on Gatewaying between X.400 and Internet
            Mail , August 1993

The alternative is:

[X400]  Recommendation F.400/X.400 (06/99), ITU-T,
         <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-F.400-199906-I/en>

but I prefer the 1506 because it cites IFIP wg6.5 and has some historical 
discussion.

Does that work for you?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:32:09 -0700

okey dokey,  thanks!

d/

Patrick Cain wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> Sure that works for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pat
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:04 PM
...

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Patrick Cain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:06:58 -0400

Dave,

Sure that works for me.

Thanks,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:04 PM
To: Patrick Cain
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-crocker-email-arch-11

> 2. The document uses a bunch of traditional x.400 messaging terms (e.g.,
MHS,

Patrick,

Thanks for the review.

Leaving out x.400 references wasn't an accident, but it also wasn't obvious
which way to go.  For one thing, in email presentations, I sometimes ask who
has
not heard of x.400 and it has become a substantial number.  (And, for
reference,
we developed the original UA/MTA model before X.400, through IFIP WG 6.5.)

Perhaps more substantive is the potential for confusing the reading:
email-arch
provides its own definitions, and they are not the same as X.400's.  This is
especially true for ADMD.  (It's a little bit like the discomfort of trying
to
be precisely use the actual ISO definitions of the 7 layers, when talking
about
IETF networking protocols.  Approximation works well; precision doesn't.)

I suggest simply adding a citation to the first reference to UA/MTA in

The alternative is:

Does that work for you?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker