Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Alan Ross. The responsible Area Director is Sean
Turner.

This document specifies how S/MIME signing and encryption can be applied
between a Message Submission Agent (MSA) and a Message Delivery Agent (MDA) or
between 2 Message Transfer Agents (MTA).

This document is an updated version of Experimental RFC 3183. This
specification re-uses the concepts described in RFC 3183 for: Domain
Signatures; and Domain Encryption and Decryption. The changes from RFC 3183
that have been incorporated in this specification have been declared in
Appendix A.

There are several existing implementations of this document, so it is suitable
for being published on Standard Track.

2. Review and Consensus

This is an individual submission based on an existing RFC.

This document was reviewed by several S/MIME experts.

There is at least one implementation of the document and several older
implementations that are doing similar things (for example
<https://signing-milter.org/> and
<http://www.postfix.org/addon.html#security-gateway>).

3. Intellectual Property

Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There are no IPR
disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points

A question was raised about the need to register "smtp" and "submit" URI
schemes.

The "smtp" URI is in wide use and can be provisionally registered.

For example see <http://camel.apache.org/mail.html> and
<http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/wsdatap/v3r8m1/index.jsp?topic=%2Fxs40%2Furlopensmtp.htm>

The IANA Considerations section might change if the "submit" and/or "smtp" URI
scheme needs to be registered.

A question was raised about deprecating other signature types from RFC 3183
("Review Signature" (Section 2.2 of RFC 3183) and "Additional Attributes
Signature" (Section 2.3 of RFC 3183)). This was not the original intention of
draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-02. An option may be to move them from RFC 3183
to draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-02.

In addition to this if these signature types or others are required for
draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-02 it may make sense to obsolete RFC 3183.

The document needs an old boilerplate, as RFC 3183 used an old one. This can be
fixed once IETF LC is over.
Back