Subject: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-02

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:52:58 +0700

Hi,

the chairs received a request for adoption of
draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-02 [1] as UTA WG document.
The draft seems to be in scope of UTA WG and follows the IETF trend to
deprecate using insecure protocols. 
Please send your comments to the list whether you support the adoption.
Please give your reasons in case you don't support the adoption.

Regards,
Leif & Valery.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:53:52 -0800

I support the adoption of this; seems pretty straightforward.

But isn't it possible to point specifications like RFC 8314 to a BCP 
somewhere so that we don't need to revise everything that references TLS 
whenever there is a version update? Seems like a lot of unnecessary work.

If 8314 is being replaced rather than updated, there are a few other 
things that could be done at the same time:
   * Address the outstanding erratum
   * Update the reference to MTA-STS
   * Possibly include reference to REQUIRETLS, especially for message 
submission

-Jim

On 11/7/18 9:52 PM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

---

From: "A. Schulze" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 20:39:59 +0100

> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email

I've read the document. Makes sense and looks like not more then s/TLSv1.1/TLSv1.2/

Andreas

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:23:02 -0500

On 2018-11-08 00:52 -0500, Valery Smyslov wrote:> the chairs received a 
request for adoption of> draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-02 [1] as UTA 
WG document.> The draft seems to be in scope of UTA WG and follows the 
IETF trend to> deprecate using insecure protocols.

In the TLS WG there is indeed 
draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-01.txt floating around, whose 
abstract starts with:
This document, if approved, formally deprecates Transport Layer
    Security (TLS) versions 1.0 [RFC2246] and 1.1 [RFC4346] and moves
    these documents to the historic state

It has a long list of RFCs it updates due to the above, but 8314 is not 
among its list of RFCs.

HTH,

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:54:16 +0300

Hi Patrick,

> It has a long list of RFCs it updates due to the above, but 8314 is not

thanks for clarification. Indeed the author's motivation (as far as I understand)
is that the draft draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate is generic, while this draft 
is concentrated on deprecating using TLS prior to 1.2 in e-mail related protocols.

Anyway, can you clarify whether you support adoption or not?

Regards,
Valery.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:14:41 -0500

This looks ok to me.  I concur with the reasoning in the document.

- Keith

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 16:49:05 +0300

Hi,

several comments were received supporting adoption of the draft
and no one was against. It seems that we have a clear consensus 
that the draft is interesting to this WG and people are ready to work on it.

So the draft is adopted. Authors, please re-submit it with WG name,
so that it is easier for others to track it.

I also ask those who supported adoption to review the draft
and comment on it. The draft looks pretty straightforward, 
so I hope we'll have no difficulties with it.

Regards,
Leif & Valery.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:52:24 +0000

Hiya,

Great. One of us'll do that in the net couple of days,

Cheers,
S.