RE: [opes] draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-01

Hilarie,

your advice is well taken and your help is much appreciated :-)

I am very ok with adding this sentence to the Introduction as you propose
and if you want to provide some paragraphs to the document, that'd be
excellent.

Tony/Markus: As this has been raised during the WGLC, I am awaiting your
call whether we should create a new revision of the document.

Hilarie: Would you be able to send those paragraphs within less than a week?
I am going on vacation for the holidays and would love to get this finally
done in 2006 ;-)

Regards
Martin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilarie Orman [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2006 19:42
> To: Stecher,Martin
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [opes] draft-ietf-opes-smtp-security-01
> 
> Speaking as someone who has followed the WG for some time and 
> knows the context of the work, I repeat, the introduction 
> *really* does need some kind of simple statement about its 
> purpose.  Something like "Because OPES is a protocol that is 
> built over application layer transports, its security may 
> depend on the specifics of the transport.
> OPES designs are guided by the IAB 'Consideration' document 
> [2], and those considerations are revisited here in the 
> context of the SMTP protocol."  Put that right after the "2. 
> Introduction" line and then the section title for 2.1 becomes 
> much less jarring.
> 
> My points about encryption may seem overly technical, but 
> they are essential.  Privacy and integrity are separate 
> concepts.  Keeping a message secret is different from 
> ensuring that message modification is detectable.  The 
> algorithms are different, the implementations are different, 
> the key management is different, they are different things.
> They cannot be conflated into the single word "encryption" or 
> even the shorthand "encryption/signing".  They must be 
> discussed separately.
> I'll write the paragraphs if that will help.
> 
> Hilarie
> 
>