mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Preview of draft-09

2007-11-05 12:15:52
SM wrote:
If this memo replaces the Received-SPF header, then it changes the requirements on an existing protocol.
SPF is an experimental protocol. Thus, I'm not sure this is a big deal. Anyone else want to weigh in?

   For tracing and debugging purposes, the authentication identifier
   SHOULD be the domain name of the MTA performing the authentication
   check whose result is being reported.

I suggest changing that to a recommendation as follows:

It is RECOMMENDED that the authentication identifier be the domain name of the MTA performing the authentication check to guarantee uniqueness and for ease of tracing and
  debugging.

That allows the implementor to choose an authentication identifier while providing some guidance.
I'm not sure I see much of a semantic difference there. Anyone else want to weigh in?


   An MUA MUST ignore any result reported using a "result" or "ptype"
   not enumerated by this specification or a later amendment to it.

I suggest using the following text. It covers any later amendment to the specification.

A MUA MUST ignore any results reported using a "result" not enumerated in this specification or "ptype" not in the Email Authentication Method Name Registry.
Again, I'm not sure I see much of a semantic difference there. It's pretty clear from reading the entire document that the only acceptable ptypes are those in the registry.



8.3.  Other Protocols

[...]
   It is the intention of the author to follow this proposal with drafts
   proposing the above two extensions.

The last sentence could be a note to be removed at publication time as it doesn't pertain to this draft.

Removed.


C.2.  Nearly-trivial case; service provided, but no authentication done

   A message that was delivered by an MTA that conforms to this standard
   but provides no actual message authentication service:

Could you use "conforms to this specification" instead of "conforms to this standard" in the example cases (C2 and C3)? It's not a standard yet.

Done.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>