Integrity, Privacy, and Security in Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) for SMTP
draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-03
Yes
(Ted Hardie)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-03-06)
Unknown
I'm balloting no objection because I agree it is good to get the current state of the WG documented. If this were going to be a set of requirements for future work rather than an input to those discussions then I would have several blocking comments. My most serious concern is with the handling of consent. There seems to be no mechanism proposed to actually allow one party to give consent or to withdraw that consent. In the case of the sender the bypass mechanism may be sufficient. However I don't see how receivers meaningfully manage consent without some standardized mechanism to do so. I'm also concerned about message encryption. At least in the case of content conversion for lemonade, I argued that a mechanism to provide gateways with message encrypting keys seemed important. I'm not sure the same isn't true of OPES.