IESG Secretary | 28 Nov 18:57 2011
Picon

WG Action: Conclusion of Yet Another Mail (yam)

The Yet Another Mail (yam) working group in the Applications Area has 
concluded. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre.

The mailing list will remain active.
Pete Resnick | 22 Nov 07:03 2011

Last Call for YAM shutdown

I plan to send the message in approximately 24 hours to shutdown YAM, 
leaving the mailing list open. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

pr

--

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

rfc | 16 Nov 10:35 2011

STD 72, RFC 6409 on Message Submission for Mail


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        STD 72        
        RFC 6409

        Title:      Message Submission for Mail 
        Author:     R. Gellens, J. Klensin
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       November 2011
        Mailbox:    rg+ietf@..., 
                    john-ietf@...
        Pages:      20
        Characters: 40153
        Obsoletes:  RFC4409
        See Also:   STD0072

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6409.txt

This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each
service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy,
etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission
server.

Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25.

When conforming to this document, message submission uses the
(Continue reading)

Leonidas Lymberopoulos | 7 Nov 12:49 2011
Picon

(CFP) IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet  
(ManFI 2012)
==================================================================================
16 April 2012
Maui, Hawaii, USA
http://www.manfi.org

CALL FOR PAPERS
---------------
The Fourth IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future  
Internet (ManFI 2012) will be held in conjunction with IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2012  
in Maui, Hawaii, USA, from April 16-20, 2012. The workshop is sponsored by  
the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and supported by POSTECH ITCE,  
Ghent University-IBBT, NEC, and Ericsson LM. The workshop is endorsed by  
the Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM).

It is widely agreed that, despite its many successes, the current Internet  
also has a set of systemic problems, ranging from an upcoming shortage of  
IP addresses to insufficient security. However, the lack of scalable and  
agile manageability is arguably more important, as without management, it  
is impossible to build systems that adapt the services and resources  
offered in a context-dependent manner.

In either case (clean slate vs. evolution vs. revolution) we must consider  
the manageability of the Future Internet from the beginning. Following the  
success of the three previous editions of this workshop, held in  
(Continue reading)

The IESG | 6 Sep 16:39 2011
Picon

Protocol Action: 'Message Submission for Mail' to Full Standard (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Message Submission for Mail'
  (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt) as a Full Standard

This document is the product of the Yet Another Mail Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis/

Technical Summary

This document splits message submission from message relay, allowing each
service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.)
and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server.

Working Group Summary

The YAM WG adopted a two-step approach to move this document to Full Standard.
The first step was a pre-evaluation of the existing specification to identify
changes and non-changes. The second step was to incorporate the changes into
the document and ensure that any implementation that conforms to the Draft
Standard version of the specification remains compliant with this document.
There was no controversy. There is consensus to move the specification to
Full Standard.

Document Quality

The document has a high degree of technical maturity. In the five years since
(Continue reading)

internet | 2 Sep 20:37 2011
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Message Submission for Mail
	Author(s)       : Randall Gellens
                          John C Klensin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2011-09-02

   This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each
   service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy,
   etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission
   server.

   Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25.

   When conforming to this document, message submission uses the
   protocol specified here, normally over port 587.

   This separation of function offers a number of benefits, including
   the ability to apply specific security or policy requirements.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 24 Aug 02:10 2011

Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for the review.

At 15:16 23-08-2011, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I have no objection to the publication of this document, but here 
>are some piddle-nits you might look at in the interest of making the 
>draft so highly polished that you can see your ^H^H^H face in it.

Polished drafts rarely make it to Full Standard. :-)

>---
>
>idnits says...
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4409, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

RFC 4409 obsoletes RFC 2476.  That RFC does not mention that fact in 
the Abstract.  The "should" might have been appropriate if the draft 
was not intended to be published as a Full Standard.

>---
>
>I think you are not supposed to include citations in the Abstract.
>On the other hand, it might be nice to include the reference to
>[SMTP-MTA] in the first paragraph of Section 1.
(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 24 Aug 01:43 2011

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt> (Message Submission for Mail) to Full Standard

Hi Frank,
At 16:20 23-08-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>While at it please convince IANA that they can now s/2476/4409bis/ below
>the table in the footnote:
>
>| * Submit [RFC2476] only. Not for use with SMTP on port 25.

There was a note about that in the Document Shepherd write-up.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

S Moonesamy | 23 Aug 22:04 2011

Re: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Russ,
At 10:45 22-08-2011, Russ Housley wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   The specification says:
>
>     If an incoming message includes a DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880],
>     S/MIME [RFC5751], or other signature, sites SHOULD consider what
>     effect message modifications will have on the validity of the
>     signature, and MAY use the presence or absence of a signature as
>     a criterion when deciding what, if any, modifications to make.
>
>   This text is a warning that there are dragons here, but it does not
>   tell the reader anything about the real consequences.  I believe
>   that the text ought to be saying that portions of the incoming
>   message that are covered by the signature SHOULD NOT be altered.
>   The consequences of such alteration should probably be included in
>   the security considerations.

The YAM WG was asked for feedback about this issue.  Dave Crocker 
suggested the following text as a replacement for the text you quoted above:

    "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
     signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], and can render the
     signature invalid.  This, in turn, can affect message handling by later
     receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or absence
     of a signature."
(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 23 Aug 18:48 2011

Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the review.

At 04:04 19-08-2011, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Given that start-tls is (as stated) the most common
>way to secure the submission channel, perhaps the
>mention of IPsec in 3.3 would be better replaced
>with a reference to start-tls?

I posted a message to the YAM WG about this.  There wasn't any 
response.  I am going to default to a "no change" as this was not 
raised as an issue during the WGLC or the Last Call.

Please do not read it as meaning that your comment does not have 
merit.  As the intended status of the draft is Full Standard and the 
text was already in RFC 4409, the barrier for making a change is higher.

>typo in IANA cnosiderations? "The table in Table 1..."
>s/table/text/?

I am waiting for feedback from the editors about fixes to the IANA 
Considerations section.

Regards,
(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 23 Aug 18:38 2011

Re: Sean Turner's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Sean,
At 07:11 23-08-2011, Sean Turner wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>WRT to anchor36: Do we expect the RFC editor to ask the IESG before 
>or after the telechat?  I think you could delete it prior to publication.

It can be deleted prior to publication.

>Appendix B: You could strike 5322 from the list because it's an 
>informative reference.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 


Gmane