Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-00

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:53:00 -0400

We are starting WG last call on the "Integrity, privacy and security in 
OPES for SMTP" draft (see 
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-00.txt).

Please post comments, etc. to the mailing list, and
please point out whether you feel your comment is editorial or a
show-stopper.

Per previous email, the document will be forwarded to IESG only if we 
receive at least THREE positive reviews, along the lines of "I have read 
it and think it is ready for last call".

If we don't get at least three positive reviews, we'll consider sending 
out the document as Informal or Experimental with a proposed note 
stating "Published as a record of the work", which highlights that the 
work did not fully complete.

The last call period closes on Monday, August 28 at 5pm EDT.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:47:11 -0700

At 05:53 12-08-2006, Markus Hofmann wrote:
>We are starting WG last call on the "Integrity, privacy and security 
>in OPES for SMTP" draft (see 

In Section 2.2 "A large number of email filters is deployed at SMTP 
gateways today;" should be:

A large number of email filters are deployed at SMTP gateways today;

Section 2.5 mentions "compromised OPES systems".  If an OPES system 
mangles a message in such a way to make it undeliverable or 
unreadable, it doesn't mean that the system has been compromised.  I 
suggest removing that word.

Section 3.3 has two typos, "Encrpyting" and "Beause".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:57:23 +0200

I am OK for alst call with the whole document except one security 
related point.

section 4.
I think that MUSTs should be replaced by SHOULDs.
section 5.
We should mention that there is a security problem of these SHOULDs 
are not enforced.

The reason why is to permit OPES applications where there is no trace 
on mails. In particular for reverse security reasons (I do not want 
to disclose my protection strategy to protect it).
jfc

At 14:53 12/08/2006, Markus Hofmann wrote:

>Per previous email, the document will be forwarded to IESG only if 
>we receive at least THREE positive reviews, along the lines of "I 
>have read it and think it is ready for last call".
>
>If we don't get at least three positive reviews, we'll consider 
>sending out the document as Informal or Experimental with a proposed 
>note stating "Published as a record of the work", which highlights 
>that the work did not fully complete.
>

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:13:10 -0400

I've sent a bunch of nits to Martin.

After the other comments on the list have been addressed in a new
version, I think this document is ready to be forwarded to last call.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Markus Hofmann wrote:
> OPES for SMTP" draft (see draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-00.txt).