ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP

2011-05-14 01:48:04
Hi Murray,
At 11:17 13-05-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
By my read, the bulk of your comments fall into these categories:

(1) Remove the normative language, publish as Informational

As I said to John, I'd be fine with this. The document started out as Informational but there was working group momentum in the direction of a BCP instead, hence the conversion to use of RFC2119 language. I personally don't have strong feelings about that so if the preferred course of action is to go back to that, I'd be fine.

Ok.

Yes, I believe they are consistent. The citation you made from RFC5451 directs implementations to delete forgeries (the MUST) and optionally delete everything else as well (the MAY). The citation from this document does not dispute the MUST, and provides further guidance for this particular application (which is also consistent with other parts of RFC5451) in terms of how to deal with what's left after the MUST part is done.

Ok.

3.6.2 applies to relays, not recipients. A relay might try DKIM validation and ADSP evaluation, but that's not the model this document discusses.

However, if that doesn't matter, unfortunately this makes the distinction we're trying to make impossible without using enhanced status codes, which aren't universally used. But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.

You can use 550 5.7.1. The enhanced status code used in the draft is appropriate.

Thanks for the quick response. BTW, I forgot to the "best current practices" in Section 8. It's an editorial nit.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>