Subject: [Uta] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:20:18 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A small question before I go to "Yes":

RFC 2595 Section 2.4 says:

   - Matching is case-insensitive.

This document does not.  Was that dropped intentionally?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Introduction, you say that ths document replaces Section 2.4 of
RFC 2595.  It appears that it's specifically Section 3 that replaces that
section.  Maybe it's best to say that?

-- Section 2 --

   reference identifier:  (as defined in [RFC6125]) One of the domain
      names associated by the email (i.e., an SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
      ManageSieve) client with the target email server and optionally an
      application service type for performing name checks on the server
      certificate.

1. You refer to the definition in 6125 as though you're repeating it
here, but you're not: you're giving a different definition.  Maybe if you
said "formally defined in RFC 6125" instead, it'd be clearer that this
explanation is applying that formal definition to this specific situation
(email).

2. It's usually bad to put a parenthesized explanation in the middle of a
unit, and "email client" is a unit here.  (And, as almost always, I think
"i.e." is unnecessary and further distracting.)

3. The sentence is long and awkward, saying "associated by... with... and
optionally...," and it's easy to get lost.

Here's a suggestion:
NEW
   reference identifier:  (formally defined in [RFC6125]) One of the
      domain names that the email client (SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
ManageSieve)
      associates with the target email server.  The identifier can also
      include an application service type for performing name checks on
      the server certificate.
END

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:33:22 +0000

Hi Barry,
I am going to quickly answer to your DISCUSS point and will reply to 
your comments separately:

This was replaced by section 6.4 (Matching the DNS Domain Name Portion) 
from RFC 6125 and its subsections. So by pointing to RFC 6125 there is 
no need to say that.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:56:54 -0500

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> I am going to quickly answer to your DISCUSS point and will reply to your
> comments separately:
>
> This was replaced by section 6.4 (Matching the DNS Domain Name Portion) from
> RFC 6125 and its subsections. So by pointing to RFC 6125 there is no need to
> say that.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
>
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:57:36 -0500

(Sorry for the empty message I just sent...)

> RFC 6125 and its subsections. So by pointing to RFC 6125 there is no need to

Excellent; thanks.  Going to clear that point now.

Barry

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:33:21 +0000

Hi Barry,
Thank you for your comments:

Yes, changed.
> explanation is applying that formal definition to this specific situation
Ok, changed.
> "i.e." is unnecessary and further distracting.)
Ok, fixed.
>        include an application service type for performing name checks on
Ok, thank you.