Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-pop3-over-tls-01.txt

24.08.2011 6:41, Chris Newman wrote:
> Only aesthetic editorial suggestions left, use if you wish...
>
> --On August 23, 2011 8:07:33 +0300 Mykyta Yevstifeyev 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 18.08.2011 3:39, Chris Newman wrote:
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>> Here are some editorial suggestions:
>>>
>>> In Abstract, OLD:
>>>   This document specifies how the Post Office Protocol, Version 3
>>>   (POP3) may be secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol,
>>>   by establishing TLS layer connection directly before POP3
>>>   transaction.  It updates RFC 1939 and RFC 2595.
>>> NEW:
>>>   This document specifies use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) on
>>>   port 995 to protect Post Office Protocol, Version 3. It updates RFC 
> 2595.
>>>
>>> Discussion: This no longer changes any rules in RFC 1939, so I see no
>>> reason to update that specification -- perhaps best to avoid the
>>> debates about "does this update spec XXX?" and "what does it mean for
>>> a proposed standard to update a full standard?" during last call.
>>
>> I'm OK to remove "updates RFC 1939".  However, the current abstract,
>> compared with the proposed, seems to be clearer.
>
> I can live with either text. But consider changing the final clause 
> to: "establishing a TLS connection directly before the POP3 
> transaction". Note that "TLS" standards for "Transport Layer 
> Security", so "Transport Layer Security layer connection" just sounds 
> wrong to me, thus the suggestion to drop the redundant "layer".

Fine; fixed now.

>
>>>   Two mechanisms to protect POP3 using TLS have been deployed. One 
> negotiates
>>>   TLS within POP3 (also known as upgrading to TLS) [RFC2595].  The 
>>> other
>>>   starts TLS prior to starting the POP3 application layer. The latter
>>>   mechanism (called "POP3S" throughout this document) has not been 
> previously
>>>   specified in an RFC. This document specifies POP3S.
>>
>> The analogy with HTTP, I'm convinced, is very useful; however, some of
>> the improvements you propose here will be incorporated.  (Later:) I've
>> left the following text:
>
> Ok, how about this (to make the analogy appear in one place instead of 
> a subordinate clause with a forward reference):
>
> OLD:
>     Two ways of protecting POP3 with TLS have been deployed (like 2 ways
>     of securing HTTP [RFC2616]; see below).  The first includes
> NEW suggestion:
>     Two ways of protecting POP3 with TLS have been deployed similar to 
> the
>     two specified ways of protecting HTTP [RFC2616] with TLS described in
>     RFC 2817 [RFC2817] and RFC 2818 [RFC2818]. The first includes ...

When pointing to RFCs 2817 & 2818 after brief description of what these 
two ways mean, the reader can thus apply them to these references.  So 
I'll leave the current text (and I don't think it's a significant issue 
to have much discussion and debate).

>
>> This might be considered that POP3S is a protocol that is different from
>> POP3.  However, I'll try to change this sentence so that it gets shorter
>> and clearer.  I think the following is fine:
>>
>>     After the client has received the +OK response to the authentication
>>     command, they both enter TRANSACTION state.
>
> How about:
>     After the client has received the +OK response to the authentication
>     command, both the client and server enter TRANSACTION state.

Fixed.

Mykyta

>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
>         - Chris
>
>
>
>