Tunneling of SMTP Message Transfer Priorities
draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-10-16
|
04 | Martin Thomson | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2012-08-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-08-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-08-16
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-08-15
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-08-15
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Followup |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-31
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-07-31
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-04.txt |
2012-07-30
|
03 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-07-30
|
03 | Pete Resnick | Changed to Informational as per IESG Evaluation. |
2012-07-30
|
03 | Pete Resnick | Intended Status changed to Informational from Experimental |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] The IESG is fine with moving this to Informational, and that satisfies my concerns. I will work with the author to get this … [Ballot comment] The IESG is fine with moving this to Informational, and that satisfies my concerns. I will work with the author to get this made into Informational. |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] Between Adrian's comment and Barry's, I am no longer convinced that Experimental is the correct status for this document (and I kick myself … [Ballot discuss] Between Adrian's comment and Barry's, I am no longer convinced that Experimental is the correct status for this document (and I kick myself for not noticing this earlier on my own). I'm considering Informational. I'd like to discuss this issue, and not only with myself. |
2012-07-19
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2012-07-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, and welcome that it is Experimental. As with many Experimental documents I review, … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, and welcome that it is Experimental. As with many Experimental documents I review, I would like the Abstract to note the Experimental status (as, for example, is done in the first line of the Introduction). I should also like to see a little more scoping of the Experiment: - why it is experimental - what nodes participate in the experiment - how the experiment is constrained - how the experiment will be judged It is not mandatory to add such text (hence this is not a Discuss), but I think it really helps people work out how to work with the document. |
2012-07-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-07-18
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Based on the discussion following the posting of the Gen-ART Review by Martin Thomson on 8-June-2012, it seems that there is … [Ballot discuss] Based on the discussion following the posting of the Gen-ART Review by Martin Thomson on 8-June-2012, it seems that there is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved: > > But now that I am looking at the two sections ("Security > Considerations" and "Relay of messages to non-conforming SMTP > servers"), they might be out of sync as far as requirements are > concerned. So I need to tweak one or both of them to match. |
2012-07-18
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-07-18
|
03 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot comment text updated for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4: > This memo defines a mechanism for tunneling of SMTP (Simple Mail > Transfer Protocol) Message Transfer Priority … [Ballot comment] INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4: > This memo defines a mechanism for tunneling of SMTP (Simple Mail > Transfer Protocol) Message Transfer Priority values through MTAs > (Message Transfer Agents) that don't support the MT-PRIORITY SMTP > extension. Shouldn't this hint to the fact that this memo is updating [SMTP-PRIORITY], as stated in Section 3.1 and the following sections? |
2012-07-17
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-07-16
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Section 7, 1st para: How would one use S/MIME to sign the MT-Priority header field? You'd have to encapsulate the message wouldn't … [Ballot comment] - Section 7, 1st para: How would one use S/MIME to sign the MT-Priority header field? You'd have to encapsulate the message wouldn't you? I think you could omit mention of S/MIME here. - Section 7, 1st para (again:-): DKIM doesn't allow you to know who put this header on, just who signed it (if its included in the signature). So I think what you want to say is something like "DKIM signing allows a recipient to verify that the specified priority value was present when the message was signed, and to verify who signed the message." But the signer might not be the one that "generated" the header. - Same section: Calling for an MUA to use DKIM is a bit of a stretch, but would I guess work, though the key mgmt isn't very well-defined for that use-case really since you end up with per-user keys in the DNS, or have to share private keys. |
2012-07-16
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-07-16
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-07-13
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-07-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-07-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-07-12
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-03.txt |
2012-07-10
|
02 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party |
2012-07-10
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Waiting for expert review of addition to the Permanent Header Registry. |
2012-07-10
|
02 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from IESG Evaluation |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] As I noted in the shepherd writeup, I have some concern about the broader applicability of this as a standard, given the trade-offs … [Ballot comment] As I noted in the shepherd writeup, I have some concern about the broader applicability of this as a standard, given the trade-offs the proponents have made. That said, some of them had to be made, and there is value in implementing features from proprietary email systems in standardized ways on the open Internet. There does seem to be consensus that it's worth trying this out, and that it's not terribly unsafe to do so. The tunneling of the PRIORITY value through non-conforming MTAs by turning it into a message header field (MT-Priority) and then back again is a problematic technique, but is an important capability for those who need and intend to implement the smtp-priority extension. It creates a trust issue, wherein a message containing MT-Priority could be originated with a Message Submission Agent that does not know about this extension, and when the message hits a Message Transfer Agent that does support this, the header field will be turned back into a valid PRIORITY value, on the unwarranted assumption that it was authorized. Intermediate MTAs have no way to distinguish this situation from one where the field was tunneled legitimately. The counter-argument is that the use case for this specification involves out-of-band trust relationships, and that such situations will be known and dealt with. Only by experimenting with it will we see how (or if) it can extend to other use cases where such trust relationships aren't as clean. |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Ballot has been issued |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-09
|
02 | Pete Resnick | PROTO writeup for draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02 The publication of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling as an Experimental RFC is requested by an individual contributor. (1) What type of RFC is being … PROTO writeup for draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02 The publication of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling as an Experimental RFC is requested by an individual contributor. (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? This document proposes a protocol extension to its companion document, draft-melnikov-smtp-priority. Experimental was chosen because the new mechanism of tunneling the SMTP parameters through servers that don't support them by using reserved message header fields (see more below) is of uncertain quality, and needs field experience. The idea is not deemed to be of Proposed Standard quality yet, without such experimentation and experience. The title page header says "Experimental". (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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This defines a mechanism for tunneling of SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) Message Transfer Priority values through MTAs (Message Transfer Agents) that don't support the MT-PRIORITY SMTP extension. Working Group Summary Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? There are currently no appropriate email-related working groups. The ADs and AppsAWG chairs considered the document for the Apps Area WG, but decided that it would be done best as an individual submission, and did not need the attention of the working group. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is at least one prototype implementation, and plans for at least one other after publication. This is largely being done for a particular use case, and the proponents are aware of some of the tradeoffs they've made. The shepherd has some concern about the broader applicability of this as a standard, given those trade-offs. That said, some of them had to be made, and there is value in implementing features from proprietary email systems in standardized ways on the open Internet. The shepherd supports that general effort. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Pete Resnick is the Responsible 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. This document began life recently, as a split-off of the parameter tunneling aspect of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority. Splitting that into this experimental document, rather than having it on Standards Track, as alleviated my concerns, echoed by others. There does seem to be consensus that it's worth trying this out, and that it's not terribly unsafe to do so. This document shares the trust model issues of the other document (see below). (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The proposal in this document has had sufficient review from the email community, on the ietf-smtp list and through individual reviews, as part of the review of its companion document. I have no concerns about the level of review. (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. I would like to see SecDir and OpsDir reviews during the last-call process. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The tunneling of the PRIORITY value through non-conforming MTAs by turning it into a message header field (MT-Priority) and then back again is a problematic technique, but is an important capability for those who need and intend to implement the smtp-priority extension. It creates a trust issue, wherein a message containing MT-Priority can be originated with a Message Submission Agent that does not know about this extension, and when the message hits a Message Transfer Agent that does support this, the header field will be turned back into a valid PRIORITY value, on the unwarranted assumption that it was authorized. Intermediate MTAs have no way to distinguish this situation from one where the field was tunneled legitimately. The counter-argument is that the use case for this specification involves out-of-band trust relationships, and that such situations will be known and dealt with. I believe that limits the usability of those features on the open Internet, with other use cases. (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 discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No, and there are no known IPR issues with this document. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? The consensus for this is solid, but relatively small. A number of participants/reviewers have expressed interest in the concept, though it's not clear how much implementation is planned. (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. The document refers to iana.org URLs at the shepherd's request, to make it clear which registries are being referenced. These URLs will be removed before RFC publication. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews are needed. (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? This document has a normative reference to draft-melnikov-smtp-priority, which will progress at the same time as this one. (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 interested community considers it unnecessary. No documents are modified by this one. (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). The document contains one IANA action, which is clearly specified and correct. No new registries are created. (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 to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. I have run the usual idnits and ABNF checks, and all is OK. |
2012-07-03
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-07-19 |
2012-07-02
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-06-25
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA Action requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon … IANA has reviewed draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA Action requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action requested of IANA. In the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html a new field name is to be added as follows: Header field name: MT-Priority Protocol: mail Status: standard Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question -> Currently the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry is maintained through expert review as defined in RFC 5226. Has the document been reviewed by the Well-Known URL registry expert? IANA understands that this in the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2012-06-19
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2012-06-19
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2012-06-08
|
02 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2012-06-07
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-06-07
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Tunneling of SMTP Message Transfer Priorities) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Tunneling of SMTP Message Transfer Priorities) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Tunneling of SMTP Message Transfer Priorities' as Experimental RFC 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 2012-07-02. 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 memo defines a mechanism for tunneling of SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) Message Transfer Priority values through MTAs (Message Transfer Agents) that don't support the MT-PRIORITY SMTP extension. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Last call was requested |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-06-04
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-06-02
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-02.txt |
2012-05-31
|
01 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2012-05-14
|
01 | Pete Resnick | Responsible AD changed to Pete Resnick from Barry Leiba |
2012-05-10
|
01 | Barry Leiba | Assigned to Applications Area |
2012-05-10
|
01 | Barry Leiba | Stream changed to IETF |
2012-05-10
|
01 | Barry Leiba | Intended Status changed to Experimental |
2012-05-10
|
01 | Barry Leiba | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2012-05-02
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-01.txt |
2012-05-01
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-tunneling-00.txt |