Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls-09

(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 as indicated on the title page header and in the
  datatracker.

(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

  The SMTP STARTTLS option, used in negotiating transport-level
  encryption of SMTP connections, is not as useful from a security
  standpoint as it might be because of its opportunistic nature;
  message delivery is, by default, prioritized over security.  This
  document describes an SMTP service extension, REQUIRETLS, and message
  header field, RequireTLS. If the REQUIRETLS option or RequireTLS
  message header field is used when sending a message, it asserts a
  request on the part of the message sender to override the default
  negotiation of TLS, either by requiring that TLS be negotiated when
  the message is relayed, or by requesting that recipient-side policy
  mechanisms such as MTA-STS and DANE be ignored when relaying a
  message for which security is unimportant.

Working Group Summary

  The WG consensus for adoption this draft was clear. The draft was
  well discussed in the WG and has undergone significant changes
  during this discussion. At some point there was a strong consideration 
  to split the draft into two, separating SMTP service extension 
  and mail header field, but the final consensus was that 
  it's better to define them in a single document.

Document Quality

  There are at least two implementations of the early version of the draft.
  A few major vendors and operators express an interest in this technology
  and have indicated that they evaluate a possibility to implement (or use) it.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Alexey Melnikov (AD)

(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.

  I have reviewed the document and found it ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No. The document was a subject of several reviews 
  by experienced WG members.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document.

(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?   

  The WG consensus is solid.

(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 ID nits were found by idnits tool.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  None are applicable.

(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.

  No.

(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).

  A new item "RequireTLS" is added to the "SMTP Service Extensions" registry.
  Another new item "RequireTLS" is added to the "Permanent Message Header Field Names"
  registry. In addition a new status code is defined in the "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 
  (SMTP) Enhanced Status Codes" registry. The requirements for all three registries 
  are fulfilled.

(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.

  No new registries are defined.

(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.

  No automated checks are applicable.

Back