Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
Jeff Macdonald <macfisherman@gmail.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 15:04 UTC
Return-Path: <macfisherman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CCB21F8586 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aS4LKTvzEVkv for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4552121F84FA for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so186023gwb.31 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3iRzH9Haoq/nSJMLBVVZ/kjV+qjzjX9fDGqe7xqG6Mo=; b=sqyI6jwwh6L/3TgpYxdQSBwQE2RkjIhdfATJtQiLtn4hNOSe/qJVhwc4fBlzznzip8 iCD/kRYJFy/aCtuf7ciOJW132+1Df3982XbZBINdFhfU8/0UcjkwbCHgTsN9JM7T1YZj ycKq0WKV3YbK2rrgE1QeCgR8xLanaZoctjMFk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.155.1 with SMTP id s1mr3407829icw.121.1314111907163; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.4.37 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVC6P3arC0eukFF44BORbXVxykDrB_3YryW4usMDwnCEKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com> <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVC6P3arC0eukFF44BORbXVxykDrB_3YryW4usMDwnCEKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:05:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB8aueZuKXijFTG4ZLH3763QVouVvN8bM2DcHEMT0h5A+BrBPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Macdonald <macfisherman@gmail.com>
To: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:04:00 -0000
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: >>> This is a pretty classic case of avoiding a problematic Discuss, through >>> an easy expedient. >> >> If YAM WG participants view it as such a case, they can voice their concern. > > It seems to me, SM, that that's exactly what's happening. > >> Dave suggested the following text: >> >> "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" > > And I think that text is good. I support changing the text to this, > and telling Russ that the WG is strongly in favour of having this in > there. (And I'm not in favour of SM's suggested change to it.) > > Having text such as this is important: > This is a common case, where something needs to progress on the > standards track, but something else has come along in the interim that > (1) does not change the existing protocol that's progressing, but (2) > implementors of the existing protocol now need to be aware of. > > We're not changing the protocol, but it's critical that anyone looking > at the new Message Submission spec be aware of its effect on > signatures. We MUST NOT remove this alert. +1 (that means Dave modified text is OK with me) -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA
- [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Pete Resnick
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… John Levine
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-iet… Pete Resnick