Subject: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:24:22 -0700

This is a rough summary of the discussion about 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00.  As usual, if your comments are 
misinterpreted, post a message to the mailing list.

Please note that the WGLC on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00 ends on 
Thursday 9th June.

26 May 2011 - Derek Diget suggested changes to the formatting of 
Table 1 and some text with a SHOULD for RFC 6186.

26 May 2011 - John Klensin mentioned that the formatting can be left 
to  RFC Editor staff.  He would be comfortable with incorporating the 
suggested text if there was an implementation report on 6186.

27 May 2011 - Alessandro Vesely asked whether it was worth mentioning RFC 5451.

27 May 2011 - John Klensin pointed out that the problem should be 
addressed in 5451bis.

27 May 2011 - Murray Kucherawy agreed with John Klensin.

27 May 2011 - John Levine suggested deleting the paragraph from 
Section 3.2 which discusses about "an MSA is not able to determine a 
return path".  He also suggested deleting the note at the end of 
Section 3.2 as it suffers from our endemic bad UI advice 
syndrome.  There was also a suggestion for a change to Section 3.3 
which discusses pop-before-smtp.  He asked about the definition of 
"submission rights" (Section 6.1).  He suggested moving Section 6.4 
to a deprecated appendix.  He pointed out that the note in section 8 
appears to contradict the last paragraph in 4.2.  There was also a 
comment about whether Section 8.7 makes resolving CNAMES optional.

27 May 2011 - Ned Freed did not see why the requirement to check the 
validity of
the MAIL FROM (Section 3.2) is a problem.  He disagreed about 
removing the note at the end of Section 3.2.  He mentioned that the 
text about "IP address spoofing" should be retained.  He does not 
object to changing this text to deemphazie the POP-before-SMTP 
hack.  He does not object to deprecating the special case of 
postmaster (Section 6.4).  He did not see any conflict in the 
restriction in 4.2.  He mentioned that Section 8.7 (CNAMES) is a 
fairly new requirement and needs to be fixed.

31 May 2011 - Tony Finch mentioned that no-one tries mailing 
postmaster using an MUA with broken authentication settings.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM co-chair