Updated Transport Layer Security (TLS) Server Identity Check Procedure for Email-Related Protocols
draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-03-24
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-03-14
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-03-07
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-02-22
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-25
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-01-25
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-01-25
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-01-25
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-22
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-29
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-09.txt |
2015-12-22
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Bert Wijnen. |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Maybe it's just me.. This document starts very specifically saying what it's updating/replacing, but then I didn't find references in the text that … [Ballot comment] Maybe it's just me.. This document starts very specifically saying what it's updating/replacing, but then I didn't find references in the text that said things like "this section replaces..." -- this made it hard to clearly figure out the changes. |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-12-17
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-08.txt |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] - section 3, first paragraph: MiTM prevention is just one of many reasons to match the reference identifier, right? -5.1: It might be … [Ballot comment] - section 3, first paragraph: MiTM prevention is just one of many reasons to match the reference identifier, right? -5.1: It might be worth mentioning that the methods in this draft require the provider to manage private keys for the tenant domains. - Informative References: Please consider whether 2595, 5234, and 6066 should be normative references. Editorial and Nits: -2, Reference Identifier: I agree with Barry's comments. Additionally, do you need the 2119 MUST in the definition? It seems like that belongs in the related requirements/procedures section. -4.1: This section needs more proofreading\. Here's some things I found, but I may have missed stuff. -- "manual confirm exception" -> "manually confirm exceptions" -- "because TLS server certificate verification" - Missing "the" before TLS -- "failure to match TLS server certificate against the expected domains" - missing "the" before TLS. Should "domains" be singular? -- "for example.org domain" - missing "the" before "example.org" -- "this solution depends reliance of DNSSEC " - I don't understand the phrase -- "The ability of issuing certificates that contain SRV-ID implies..." - I don't understand the phrase. - 5: Lots of sentence fragments in the numbered list items. That's not necessarily wrong, but mixing them up like this makes it harder to read. (At least for me.) |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Bert Wijnen's OPS DIR review, on which Alexey promised to act: > Hi I did the OPS-Directorate review fordraft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07 > > In general, … [Ballot comment] Bert Wijnen's OPS DIR review, on which Alexey promised to act: > Hi I did the OPS-Directorate review fordraft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07 > > In general, I think this document is more or less ready to be published. > > I do believe that section 5 does touch on a number of operational > aspects (and specifically about scaling). The title of that section > however is: > Compliance Checklist for Mail Service Providers and Certificate > Signing Request generation tools > So it may not immediately attract attention from operators so that > they can see operational aspects. Maybe that could be pointed out > somewhere in the document. > > Section 5 also states that this document and its predecessors > "don't address scaling issues caused by use of TLS in multi-tenanted > environments." And it states that further work is needed in that space. > That is another operational aspect that may need to be pointed out > specifically to operators. > > So maybe these 2 points can be highlighted in a saparate small sectoin > titled "Operational Considerations". > Just thinking aloud here. The point s have been made, but such a small > section qould quickly point operators to the proper places for info. Sounds like a good idea, I will add. |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-16
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Bert Wijnen performed the opsdir review. |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] A small question before I go to "Yes": RFC 2595 Section 2.4 says: - Matching is case-insensitive. This document does not. Was … [Ballot discuss] A small question before I go to "Yes": RFC 2595 Section 2.4 says: - Matching is case-insensitive. This document does not. Was that dropped intentionally? |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] In the Introduction, you say that ths document replaces Section 2.4 of RFC 2595. It appears that it's specifically Section 3 that … [Ballot comment] In the Introduction, you say that ths document replaces Section 2.4 of RFC 2595. It appears that it's specifically Section 3 that replaces that section. Maybe it's best to say that? -- Section 2 -- reference identifier: (as defined in [RFC6125]) One of the domain names associated by the email (i.e., an SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or ManageSieve) client with the target email server and optionally an application service type for performing name checks on the server certificate. 1. You refer to the definition in 6125 as though you're repeating it here, but you're not: you're giving a different definition. Maybe if you said "formally defined in RFC 6125" instead, it'd be clearer that this explanation is applying that formal definition to this specific situation (email). 2. It's usually bad to put a parenthesized explanation in the middle of a unit, and "email client" is a unit here. (And, as almost always, I think "i.e." is unnecessary and further distracting.) 3. The sentence is long and awkward, saying "associated by... with... and optionally...," and it's easy to get lost. Here's a suggestion: NEW reference identifier: (formally defined in [RFC6125]) One of the domain names that the email client (SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or ManageSieve) associates with the target email server. The identifier can also include an application service type for performing name checks on the server certificate. END |
2015-12-15
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-12-14
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-12-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-12-13
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-12-10
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-12-09
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07.txt |
2015-12-04
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-12-04
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-06.txt |
2015-12-04
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-12-03
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Adam Montville. |
2015-11-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2015-11-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2015-11-26
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2015-11-26
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2015-11-24
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-17 |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: uta-chairs@ietf.org, uta@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org, "Leif Johansson" , leifj@sunet.se, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: uta-chairs@ietf.org, uta@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org, "Leif Johansson" , leifj@sunet.se, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Updated TLS Server Identity Check Procedure for Email Related Protocols) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Using TLS in Applications WG (uta) to consider the following document: - 'Updated TLS Server Identity Check Procedure for Email Related Protocols' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes TLS server identity verification procedure for SMTP Submission, IMAP, POP and ManageSieve clients. It replaces Section 2.4 of RFC 2595, updates Section 4.1 of RFC 3207, updates Section 11.1 of RFC 3501, updates Section 2.2.1 of RFC 5804. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes TLS server identity verification procedure for SMTP Submission, IMAP, POP and ManageSieve clients. It replaces Section 2.4 of RFC 2595, updates Section 4.1 of RFC 3207, updates Section 11.1 of RFC 3501, updates Section 2.2.1 of RFC 5804. Working Group Summary No notable issues. Document Quality The document aligns standards for certificate verification for email protocols with current implementations and practice. The document is well written Personnel Leif Johasson (WG co-chair) is the shepherd (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document was reviewed by a small number of individuals on the UTA list. The reviews only identified minor issues. Consensus in the WG seems clear and uncontroversial. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus in the WG appears solid and uncomplicated. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. There are updates to several RFCs and they are all listed in the abstract. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA actions required (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None required |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | Responsible AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | Notification list changed to "Leif Johansson" <leifj@sunet.se> |
2015-11-02
|
05 | Leif Johansson | Document shepherd changed to Leif Johansson |
2015-09-20
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-05.txt |
2015-08-06
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-04.txt |
2015-06-17
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-03.txt |
2015-03-23
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-02.txt |
2015-03-05
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-01.txt |
2014-09-15
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-00.txt |