Appendix,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Eric Allman
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 submitted
Hector,
I thought about doing something like that but decided that to do so
would be inappropriate since these are informative, not normative.
Note the text in paragraph of section 6: ``Note that an
implementation is not constrained to use these status codes; these
are for explanatory purposes only, and an implementation may define
fewer or more status codes.'' In particular, they are not "protocol
elements" (the topic of section 3), so if I were to collect them
together, it would be in an appendix.
DKIMers: Any other thoughts on this?
eric
--On May 23, 2006 5:56:47 AM -0400 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Eric,
Just a few minutes to review this. I noticed you introduced a
series of DKIM_STAT_xxxxxx status literals which I personally
agreed with in a previous message as a good idea.
But it is scattered all over the place. It would be nice to
consolidate all of these into a table and a new section, possibly
3.8 or appendix?
Here is a suggestion/start:
3.8 DKIM Status values:
STATUS Description, index to sections?
DKIM_STAT_something Open ended for implementers, 6.0
DKIM_STAT_PARTIALSIG part of message signed, 6.0, 6.3
DKIM_STAT_INVALIDSIG Invalid signature, 6.3
DKIM_STAT_TEMPFAIL can not be verified, 6.0, 6.2
DKIM_STAT_SYNTAX signature syntax problem, 6.1,
DKIM_STAT_INCOMPAT version conflict (v=), 6.1,
DKIM_STAT_EXPIRED signature expired (x=) 6.1,
DKIM_STAT_NOKEY No DNS Public Key, 6.2,
DKIM_STAT_INAPPLICABLE Conflicts Ignored????, 6.2
DKIM_STAT_REVOKED Revoked key (p= empty), 6.2
This can be part or even become the desired section of possible
failures that is on the issues list.
Thanks and have a good day.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Allman" <eric+dkim(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 submitted
I've just submitted the -02 version of the DKIM base spec. You may
find it at one of
http://www.neophilic.com/~eric/DKIM/draft-ietf-dkim-base-02.ht
ml
http://www.neophilic.com/~eric/DKIM/draft-ietf-dkim-base-02.txt
This does incorporate the changes we discussed in last week's
jabber session. At least, I hope I got them all.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html