Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access
draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-05

[Ballot comment]
While I support the TLS version requirements changes that this document is making,
I seem to be failing to find the discussion/explanation of why this document is needed in
this format, as opposed to the changes being included as part of the updates in
draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.


Also, I have some comments on the current text.

Didn't a late review comment to the last-call on the -03 suggest to have
the requirements here include "follow BCP 195" and get a positive
response from an author?  I don't see that change present in the -04.
(A similar change was suggested nearly a year ago for the -01, in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/6ZHi1RlE2CW3eLMub2HLXaiK8dY ,
but received no response.)

Section 2

Please use the normal BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174.

Section 3

  OLD:

  In Section 4.1, the text should be revised from: "It is RECOMMENDED
  that new users be required to use TLS version 1.1 or greater from the
  start.  However, an MSP may find it necessary to make exceptions to
  accommodate some legacy systems that support only earlier versions of
  TLS or only cleartext."

  NEW:

  "It is RECOMMENDED that new users be required to use TLS version 1.2

There seems to be a mismatch regarding the presence of the "In Section
4.1, the text should be revised from" text.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for doing this.  While I don’t like this mechanism for making this update, I understand why, and accept it for this case.

— Section 2 —
Please use the current BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174, and add a normative reference to that RFC.

— Section 3 —
The text “In Section 4.1, the text should be revised from: “ should be removed from the third “OLD”, as none of the others have anything like that and it isn’t part of the old text.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.  Murray is getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I concur with Radia's review.  I would actually prefer to see RFC8314 completely replaced by a new version.  It's pretty easy to get the XML for that RFC from the editor, do the search-and-replace, add a "Changes Since" section, reset acknowledgements as appropriate, update the draft's name and date, and send it up.  That's pretty much how I did RFC8478bis.  The tracker makes it easy to diff to the old version so it's clear only the expected changes are present.

[Ballot discuss]
I think the following text from Section 4.1 of RFC8314 needs to be updated as well. Is there any reason this is left out?

  Transition of users from SSL or TLS 1.0 to later versions of TLS MAY
  be accomplished by a means similar to that described above.  There
  are multiple ways to accomplish this.  One way is for the server to
  refuse a ClientHello message from any client sending a
  ClientHello.version field corresponding to any version of SSL or
  TLS 1.0.

[Ballot comment]
I don't think it would have been necessary for this document to use the OLD/NEW style update. Effectively, you've replaced all occurrences of "1.1" with "1.2" and one occurrence of "TLS 1.0" with "TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1". I would think everybody who is smart enough to understand the content of the updated RFC, should also be able to make this exchange in their head on their own. However it's a short document no matter what, so probably not an issue one way or the other.

[Ballot comment]
Hi

In the updates it proposes, this document seems to still allow for the use/support of 1.0 and 1.1 but draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06 says MUST NOT use for these.

I'm surely missing something obvious or I'm simply incorrectly interpreting the text, but shedding light on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
-m

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for doing this.  While I don’t like this mechanism for making this update, I understand why, and accept it for this case.

— Section 2 —
Please use the current BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174, and add a normative reference to that RFC.

— Section 3 —
The text “In Section 4.1, the text should be revised from: “ should be removed from the third “OLD”, as none of the others have anything like that and it isn’t part of the old text.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email@ietf.org, uta-chairs@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net, uta@ietf.org, Valery Smyslov , alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of TLS for Email Submission and Access) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Using TLS in Applications WG (uta)
to consider the following document: - 'Use of TLS for Email Submission and
Access'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-01-31. 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 specification updates current recommendation for the use of
  Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide confidentiality of
  email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or
  Mail Access Server.  This document updates RFC8314.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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:

  This specification updates current recommendation for the use of
  Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide confidentiality of
  email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or
  Mail Access Server.  This document updates RFC8314.

Working Group Summary:

  The initial version of this document was issued (as individual draft) in September 2018. The draft was adopted in November 2018.
  The support for adoption was solid. The document is very short and straightforward, so it was only briefly discussed in the WG
  suggesting minor text improvements and catching nits.

Document Quality:

  This document doesn't define any new protocol, it only updates RFC8314 by deprecating using TLS 1.1 in mail submission protocols.
  The document is straightforward.

Personnel:

  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 in WG.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  ID nits tool reports a warning about using obsolete version of TLS 1.1 (RFC4346) as informative reference
  and an error about obsolete normative reference to TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246). I think both cases are intentional.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

  This document updates RFC8314. It is indicated in the title page headr, in the abstract and in the introduction. The reasons for the need to update are clearly explained.

(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 8126).

  The document doesn't contain any IANA actions.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

  None are applicable.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document doesn't contain YANG module.

(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:

  This specification updates current recommendation for the use of
  Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide confidentiality of
  email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or
  Mail Access Server.  This document updates RFC8314.

Working Group Summary:

  The initial version of this document was issued (as individual draft) in September 2018. The draft was adopted in November 2018.
  The support for adoption was solid. The document is very short and straightforward, so it was only briefly discussed in the WG
  suggesting minor text improvements and catching nits.

Document Quality:

  This document doesn't define any new protocol, it only updates RFC8314 by deprecating using TLS 1.1 in mail submission protocols.
  The document is straightforward.

Personnel:

  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 in WG.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  ID nits tool reports a warning about using obsolete version of TLS 1.1 (RFC4346) as informative reference
  and an error about obsolete normative reference to TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246). I think both cases are intentional.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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.

  This document updates RFC8314. It is indicated in the title page headr, in the abstract and in the introduction. The reasons for the need to update are clearly explained.

(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 8126).

  The document doesn't contain any IANA actions.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

  None are applicable.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document doesn't contain YANG module.