Subject: [Uta] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:00:50 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-19: No Objection

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-mta-sts/

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

I still don't love this - it feels like it is still "reserving" a DNS label,
but -18 text is close enough to having this as  a convention that I'm OK with
it...

Thank you!
W

Previous DISCUSS position:
[ Edit: Could the format of the _mta-sts to be something like:
"_mta-sts.example.com.  TXT "v=STSv2; id=20180114T070707; label=foo"  ?

This would mean that the policy can be fetched from foo.example.com - the
record *could* specify "label=mta-sts" if it wanted - this allows this to work
without "reserving" a DNS label.  ]

I apologize, this DISCUSS written in a rush.

I'm uncomfortable with the DNS "reservations" happening in this document -- it
basically reserves the (leftmost) DNS labels _mta-sts (as a TXT record) and
mta-sts as a hard-coded name -- I think that this needs to be better documented
/ in the IANA considerations.

I apologize for the lack of detail/lack of actionable content - I couldn't
decide between Deferring and balloting DISCUSS -- I decided on DISCUSS because 
I think I need to think about this, and clearing a DISCUSS is simpler than
having the document stuck for a full cycle.