Subject: [Uta] UTA meeting in Chicago?

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:38:05 -0800

Are there plans for a UTA WG meeting in Chicago?

If so, I'd like an opportunity to present an update on REQUIRETLS,
including recent updates to the spec (which I will have revised by then)
and info on our initial interoperability testing.

-Jim

---

From: Orit Levin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 13:13:50 +0000

Jim et al,
Yes, the intent is to meet in Chicago and progress the work.
Please, share your plans (drafts, etc.) for the upcoming meeting and request a slot ASAP by Feb 9th.

Thank you,
The chairs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Uta [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Uta] UTA meeting in Chicago?

If so, I'd like an opportunity to present an update on REQUIRETLS, including recent updates to the spec (which I will have revised by then) and info on our initial interoperability testing.

-Jim

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:52:20 -0800

I'm currently working on an update to the draft to include the MAYTLS
functionality Viktor suggested, to talk some more about possible
non-delivery of bounce messages, and other miscellaneous fixes. I expect
that to be done before the draft expires on February 17, which is well
before the I-D cutoff (March 13).

I plan on presenting an update including the changes and some results
from our initial interoperability tests.

AFAIK, UTA hasn't requested a meeting slot and that closes on Friday,
correct?

-Jim

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:19:00 +0100

> and info on our initial interoperability testing.

Me and Orit talked it over and although there hasn't been a lot of
progress on our remaining WG drafts, we're nevertheless requesting
a 1 hr slot to try to finish up outstanding items. In addition,
we'll try to get you a short slot to present REQUIRETLS

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:11:54 +0100

Hi all,

> a 1 hr slot to try to finish up outstanding items.

Could it be discussed whether updating IMAP specification (RFC 3501) in 
favour of following RFC 7525 (BCP for TLS) should be included in 
draft-ietf-uta-email-deep or be a separate document?

RFC 3501 mentions in Section 11.1 that "IMAP client and server 
implementations MUST implement the TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 [TLS] cipher 
suite", which is a statement that should no longer be followed.

Maybe Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of RFC 2595 (Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and 
ACAP) could also be marked obsolete, in favour of RFC 7525.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Se coucher tard… nuit. » (Raymond Devos)