Post-Delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Yes
(Pete Resnick) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection
While the writeup mentions: Consequently the base IMAP and POP3 documents are no longer dependent on particular downgrading choices and that two methods presented are, to a considerable extent, just examples. I believe that the two methods should be Informational, as opposed to Standards Track. However, I now see the following sentence, which was essential to me: While this document specifies a well designed mechanism, it is only an interim solution while clients are being upgraded [I-D.ietf-eai-rfc5721bis] [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis]. So I'll clear my DISCUSS. Regards, Benoit
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2012-09-25 for -07)
- Should the security considerations here have a MUST or SHOULD statement calling for the server to strip existing Downgraded-* header fields? If not, why not? - Would it be worthwhile having a PDF version of this document that contained examples that show actual non-ASCII characters in appendix A? If so, then pointing to that in the ASCII appendix A would be a good thing too.
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
Comment (2012-09-27 for -07)
Consider reinforcing in the security considerations section that the actions described by this document do not include removing any signatures from the original message - discouraging a server implementation from trying to be 'helpful' by removing a signature they know will fail.