Re: IESG Review: draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-05.txt

Scott and Working Group Participants,

Here are my thoughts on the IESG comments.

Anyone care to comment on my comments?


SH> Steve Bellovin:
SH> Discuss:
SH> [2004-07-06] Format conversions by intermediaries breaks S/MIME. 2305, on
SH> which this builds, specifically suggests using S/MIME and PGP.

RFC2305 says that they "can be used to provide end-to-end encryption".
That is rather different from suggesting that s/mime or pgp get used
at the expense of other functions.

Let's remember that there are other privacy techniques.

If we view content encryption and content conversion as examples of
functional options for FFPIM then the observation is that these two
options do not interact well.

It seems entirely reasonable to note that fact in the specification,
in case implementors have not already noticed that a content
conversion cannot work when the contents are encrypted.


SH> Ted Hardie:
SH> Discuss:
SH> [2004-07-06] This has a normative dependency on the ESMTP conneg mechanism,
SH> which I
SH> believe is not ready for widespread deployment.

That is an assessment with which I disagree and which warrants further discussion.

I'll pursue the matter further in the esmtp connect comments note.


SH> The note on "direct mode" (Appendix A), is very useful to framing the
SH> discussion, and I believe that the CONNEG mechanism has many fewer
SH> problems in "direct mode".

Yes, real-time connectivity is simpler than asynchronous interactions.

We originally specified the option only for direct mode, but it was
pointed out that this broke the email model, so we enhanced it to work
more generally.


SH> Bert Wijnen:
SH> Comment:
SH> [2004-07-08] 
SH> The text about IPR in the abstract does not belong there.
SH> I assume RFC-Editor will take care of that

oops.  yes, thanks.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>