Skip to main content

Requirements for Archiving IETF Email Lists and for Providing Web-Based Browsing and Searching
RFC 6778

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from RjS@nostrum.com to (None)
2012-10-31
07 (System) RFC published
2012-09-20
07 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2012-09-05
07 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-09-04
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2012-09-04
07 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2012-09-04
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-09-04
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-09-04
07 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-08-30
07 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-07.txt
2012-08-30
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-08-30
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Please enhance Section 5 to include a discussion of the way this new feature could be used as an attack vector on the …
[Ballot comment]
Please enhance Section 5 to include a discussion of the way this new feature could be used as an attack vector on the archive server and the mail archive itself.

---

Section 2.1

  o  When the system requires credentials, it must use the
      datatracker's authentication system.

      -  While the vast majority of archived lists have an open access
        policy, some archived lists have restricted archives

Isn't it the case that restricted archives are accessed using
credentials per mailing list and that those are not necessarily the
datatracker credentials?
2012-08-30
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-30
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Moving my discusses here for the record:

1) s2.6 2nd bullet: Maybe I just haven't thought about this correctly, but under what circumstances …
[Ballot comment]
Moving my discusses here for the record:

1) s2.6 2nd bullet: Maybe I just haven't thought about this correctly, but under what circumstances would we *not* want the deletion of a message logged?

I was convince we're good to go on this.  We're just providing a mechanism to respond to court order removals.

2) Where are the requirements for the archive administrator?  Must they be logged in with credentials before mucking with lists?

I'll trust Robert to fix this up.

Comments:

1) s2.1: Do we need to make the following more specific:
  - string occurring in sender name or email address

maybe it's string occurring in "to, from, cc, bcc, sender"?  Or is that addressed by the later header bullet?
2012-08-30
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-30
06 Francis Dupont Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2012-08-29
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-08-29
06 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Pete's comments and with Sean's second DISCUSS point.

With Adrian's DoS DISCUSS point, I think I disagree.  Any service can …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Pete's comments and with Sean's second DISCUSS point.

With Adrian's DoS DISCUSS point, I think I disagree.  Any service can be subject to a DoS attack, and I don't think we need to say that in every document.  Is there anything specific to *these requirements* that we could say about DoS attacks?  I'm not sure there is.
2012-08-29
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-08-29
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-08-28
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I am sorry to have two Discuss points on this document that I would otherwise like to support. Hopefully we can resolve them …
[Ballot discuss]
I am sorry to have two Discuss points on this document that I would otherwise like to support. Hopefully we can resolve them simply.

---

Section 2.2

[Grumble-alert]

      -  Lists hosted at other organizations may use other packages.

Why do we persist in attempting to support lists hosted outside the
IETF? Can we please stop this nonsense! I suggest the resolution is to
explicitly exclude all extrnally hosted lists from this document.

(Note, the stuff in 2.3 is fine.)

---

Section 5

What is written is true.
However, there are implications for the security of the mail archives.
And more importantly, there are implications for DoSing the archive
servers.
These surely need to be discussed.
2012-08-28
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1

  o  When the system requires credentials, it must use the
      datatracker's authentication system.

      -  …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1

  o  When the system requires credentials, it must use the
      datatracker's authentication system.

      -  While the vast majority of archived lists have an open access
        policy, some archived lists have restricted archives

Isn't it the case that restricted archives are accessed using
credentials per mailing list and that those are not necessarily the
datatracker credentials?
2012-08-28
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-28
06 Wesley Eddy
[Ballot comment]
This is a good document, but I think the notion of sorting or browsing by thread could be made more clear since this …
[Ballot comment]
This is a good document, but I think the notion of sorting or browsing by thread could be made more clear since this is done in different ways.  For instance, threads can be sorted alphabetically or chronologically.  I think we'd like both of those possibilities, and that distinction isn't captured by the simple requirement to sort by thread.  So, I believe the changes should be:

Original:
  o  The system must allow browsing the entire archive of a given list
      by thread or by date.

  o  The system must allow browsing the results of a search by thread
      or by date.

To:
  o  The system must allow browsing the entire archive of a given list
      with messages sorted by message date, thread title, or thread
      original message date.

  o  The system must allow browsing the results of a search by message
      date, thread title, or thread original message date.
2012-08-28
06 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-08-27
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
1) s2.6 2nd bullet: Maybe I just haven't thought about this correctly, but under what circumstances would we *not* want the deletion of …
[Ballot discuss]
1) s2.6 2nd bullet: Maybe I just haven't thought about this correctly, but under what circumstances would we *not* want the deletion of a message logged?

2) Where are the requirements for the archive administrator?  Must they be logged in with credentials before mucking with lists?
2012-08-27
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) s2.1: Do we need to make the following more specific:
  - string occurring in sender name or email address

maybe it's …
[Ballot comment]
1) s2.1: Do we need to make the following more specific:
  - string occurring in sender name or email address

maybe it's string occurring in "to, from, cc, bcc, sender"?  Or is that addressed by the later header bullet?
2012-08-27
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-08-27
06 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
Looks fine. Two small comments:

2.4: I believe that the archive is supposed to be *user* exportable to different formats. That's not clear …
[Ballot comment]
Looks fine. Two small comments:

2.4: I believe that the archive is supposed to be *user* exportable to different formats. That's not clear from this section. I, as a user of the archiving system, want to be able to save some messages in, e.g., mbox format. It shouldn't just be an admin function.

4: Do you want the reference to be only informative? If so, at least add something to the effect of, "The archiving system will be expected to integrate with IMAP access and therefore hooks for an IMAP system will be necessary."
2012-08-27
06 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-08-27
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-08-27
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- Possible addition to the last bullet in 2.1: "search results from
restricted archives should expose as little potentially sensitive
content as possible …
[Ballot comment]

- Possible addition to the last bullet in 2.1: "search results from
restricted archives should expose as little potentially sensitive
content as possible (e.g. perhaps don't include subject line)." You
might want to generalise that somewhere (e.g. section 5) and/or say
the same kind of thing elsewhere.

- 2.3, typo s/on-message-per-file/one-message-per-file/

- 2.3, is "lossless" really fully possible? Might be better to say
"as close to lossless as achieveable" or somesuch. (I've never
gotten 100% in doing this myself.)
2012-08-27
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-08-24
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-08-23
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-08-23
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-08-23
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-08-22
06 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-06.txt
2012-08-15
05 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-08-14
05 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-08-30
2012-08-14
05 Russ Housley State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-08-14
05 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued
2012-08-14
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-08-14
05 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2012-08-13
05 Francis Dupont Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2012-08-13
05 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-08-09
05 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there …
IANA has reviewed draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.
2012-07-19
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-07-19
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-07-19
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý
2012-07-19
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý
2012-07-16
05 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05.txt …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05.txt> (IETF Email List Archiving, Web-based Browsing and Search Tool Requirements) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF Email List Archiving, Web-based Browsing and Search Tool
  Requirements'
  <draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05.txt> as Informational 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 2012-08-13. 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


  The IETF makes heavy use of email lists to conduct its work.
  Participants frequently need to search and browse the archives of
  these lists, and have asked for improved search capabilities.  The
  current archive mechanism could also be made more efficient.  This
  memo captures the requirements for improved email list archiving and
  searching systems.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch/ballot/


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


2012-07-16
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-07-16
05 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Last call announcement was generated
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Last call was requested
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Ballot approval text was generated
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Ballot writeup was generated
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Last call announcement was changed
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Last call announcement was generated
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Last call announcement was generated
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Assigned to General Area
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley State Change Notice email list changed to RjS@nostrum.com
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Stream changed to IETF
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley Intended Status changed to Informational
2012-07-14
05 Russ Housley IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-02-29
05 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-05.txt
2012-02-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-04.txt
2011-12-16
03 (System) New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-03.txt
2011-12-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-02.txt
2011-12-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-01.txt
2011-11-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch-00.txt