Last Call Review of draft-ietf-uta-email-deep-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-10-15
IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26
Summary: The document is almost ready to be published as a standard track RFC
1. In the document I noticed that key words like recommended are sometime written in upper case letters and sometime in lower case. is there a reason?. I suggest that in section 2 reference RFC 8174 and verify that normative text is in upper case letters.
2. In section 3.3 I think the text suggests transition period of couple of years. I think that it would be better to just say that both mechanisms SHOULD be supported and delete the sentence about transition period. I also wonder why is it a SHOULD and not a MUST, in which case both mechanisms will not be supported.
1. In section 3.4 what is "gracefully close" is there a reference?
2. In section 4 fourth bullet what is near term? I assume that as long as there is no other document that says otherwise MSPs SHOULD also provide it.
3. In section 4.1 " password sent as cleartext SHOULD be required to change" I think it means "MUST change"