On 13/May/11 20:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
From: On Behalf Of SM
By my read, the bulk of your comments fall into these categories:
(1) Remove the normative language, publish as Informational
My reading of SM's comments is for replacing "Best Current Practices",
not normative language in general (but in particular, where it is
redundant.) I consider his thoughts in accord with what another John
noted:
When we make that sort of recommendation in a BCP, we expose
ourselves to the criticism that the recommendation is neither
best (as distinct from a bad compromise), nor current (as
distinct from a recommendation about future behavior), nor
actively practiced.
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.
-1, I'd favor AS/PS or even experimental over BCP, but still prefer
BCP over informational.
As for the idea of using PS instead, that doesn't seem appropriate
to me given we're not standardizing a protocol here, and at best we
don't have enough implementation experience to back up the claims.
How about running a test? I guess many of us can configure their MTAs
for signing/verifying as it requires...
(3) RFC5451 discussion
This falls under policy decision. The usage of a 554 code is
inappropriate. From Section 3.6.2 of RFC 5321:
"If it [SMTP server] declines to relay mail to a particular address
for policy reasons, a 550 response SHOULD be returned."
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.
Yes, my understanding of that SMTP snippet is that it concerns
responses to RCPT TO:<particular address>, while DKIM and ADSP can
only be evaluated after <CRLF>.<CRLF>. (In this respect, mentioning
"user unknown" in the MLM spec may cause some confusion in readers not
familiar with SMTP.)
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.
+1 for keeping 554 as is.
But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
Conformant to what?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html