Re: [Fed-Talk] PKI SIGNED E-MAIL
Re: [Fed-Talk] PKI SIGNED E-MAIL
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] PKI SIGNED E-MAIL
- From: "Miller, Timothy J." <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:41:38 +0000
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] PKI SIGNED E-MAIL
You would be held to a high bar to modify a Standards Track RFC.
Specifically, you'd have to show that something was fundamentally broken
that prevented network interoperability. IMHO, local-part
case-sensitivity doesn't rise to that threshold.
You *might* gain a little more traction in the S/MIME WG, but IMHO RFC
5750 already provides the necessary cover in Section 3:
"""
Receiving agents MUST check that the address in the
From or Sender header of a mail message matches an Internet mail
address, if present, in the signer's certificate, if mail addresses
are present in the certificate. A receiving agent SHOULD provide
some explicit alternate processing of the message if this comparison
fails, which may be to display a message that shows the recipient the
addresses in the certificate or other certificate details.
"""
Another alternative would be a BCP RFC. I've never had the time to take a
stab at one.
No, I've *never* been through this before. :)
-- T
On 11/8/11 7:14 AM, "Coradeschi, Tom CIV USA" <email@hidden>
wrote:
>IIRC the whole case sensitivity issue in the local-part has roots in
>history. Back In The Day(tm), I am thinking that VMS based systems,
>perhaps, were quite literal about case and so forth.
>
>That being said, anyone can propose a new or updated RFC, as I
>understand it. Getting it accepted? Who knows...
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html
>
>Tom Coradeschi
>Chief, Systems Engineering & Technology Integration Div
>PM Maneuver Ammunition Systems
>NIPR: email@hidden SIPR: email@hidden
>973-724-4344 (ofc) 862-251-3089 (cell)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fed-talk-bounces+tom.coradeschi=email@hidden
>[mailto:fed-talk-bounces+tom.coradeschi=email@hidden] On
>Behalf Of Miller, Timothy J.
>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:59 AM
>To: Walls, Bryan K. (MSFC-EO50); Shawn Geddis
>Cc: Fed Talk
>Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] PKI SIGNED E-MAIL
>
>On 11/7/11 2:43 PM, "Walls, Bryan K. (MSFC-EO50)" <email@hidden>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't argue that Apple is wrong to enforce the RFP, but in this case
>>the RFP is wrong. In practice no one thinks email@hidden and
>>email@hidden are completely separate addresses. It could have gone
>>that way, but it didn't. The RFP should be changed, but as far as I can
>>tell no one considers that their job.
>
>You'd likely get nowhere in the NWG because the semantics of the
>local-part is entirely up to the endpoint. IOW, if *your* MTA wants to
>bryan.walls the same as Bryan.Walls, it is free to do so. But someone
>else with a compelling reason to treat them differently needs the same
>freedom.
>
>IETF doesn't function quite like other standards bodies. It's a
>gentleman's agreement to do just enough to get "things" working at the
>connections between networking domains; it is *not* a set of mandatory
>specifications. Encoding case-sensitivity into the specification would
>make a choice on the issue that doesn't need to be made (things work as
>it
>stands) and therefore isn't IETF responsibility.
>
>-- T
>
> _______________________________________________
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>.mil
>
>This email sent to email@hidden
> _______________________________________________
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
>This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden